r  rr  f 


I. 


Division 


Section 


v8  .  H  82. 


-I 


'  kr  ri/ji  .,  Vfvk  .  •  «  ’i"*  ilk  m.‘  ^yjfc  '*•  .  .,  •  ■  ■•.■''  iji* .'  •!.  ■-“  ••'<».■  *»^  ^ 

-fix-V' ,.  .  »  >i^‘^‘'  ■■■*■'"  ^  ■"  -v^V  . ^  ■  ^•.,4,;/-  . 


> 


''  '■. ; 

•i  ' 


..^. .  -i^ 


<■> 


•i  ■  ' 

-Jl 


.,  ,1  •»■ ., 


V>4.  '^■" 

■>  .'^  •  ■ ,  -;W  '  _  . . 

j'TjSC^  »■  M 

\ 


' '  ('  ’; ;' 


•iV 


'W*^' 


•  '•  '■  T 


v'M.  ^-'s-  . 

.  ■  ^  ^,- 


,  ■  j'. 


<*-  ■» 


-  v'* 

-,.  !iM*, 

Cr  e'  s'T. 


’i^i-  -. 


'  ..  *'  *  <•  ’  r  -  ‘ 

...  ■yr---,f.  ■ 

'}  '  ‘fe, 

V  -:c.c 


#>  .  V 

v  r  .  • 


jr 


.  v;.v :  A_ 

•  .'  'r  '  -  -  •  ? 

‘V'V.  " 

t 

. . 

r 

-  ;  r  .  • 

’"I-'  ^ ■ . 

■  4'^  '' 

^ ,  i: '■  f  ■-. ’£■' 

T<‘i-  '  •'" 

''V7  ;v4  - 

',-V 

»  .kib  . 

,  ,,f-  w4^-.-.  -r,  .■■^-  '“  '  * ,  '  ■■  V''-^-'.  .^4  ^ 

s  ^4*  ^ v;-  •  ’  ■'  .  '  •  ■  ' -.. 

..  ■  ■■■,*-'.-■■  f'  • -r  ,•  -'■'■i'.-'/l  --i  ,,v  .iiws 

■'■•  -.,'  '•■•■'■';  *'■  f  ••..  '*'•  ■  '  •^  j,."*-  •  .'•■  '■  ^ 

" 'v  w, .  ..'  .,>v  *'  •  '  ■’  •-"■■'■ 

•  ..j-  v 

_:j.  '  '■  .  .k  '  ' ’-J  .  ;pi:  ■,':  '.  .  .  jM 


.4 


■  1 

.14 


r- 


■  .? 


<•»  ~  i 


*i  *> 

i>': 


>W' 


'  ,  .  '^  ... 

i-  /'  -K  ^ 

4^.  ■  . 


.  •  -"a  V 

..  *■  .  •  ■ :  •*-,.. . .  .''..I 

■j'' 


■'■  '■  •  '■*  '  ..< 

■  ■.'  ■'lip  '.  •■  •”.  ■•*?■ 

■i'A.'  ■  '>■;  V  ■-  ■■.  ^  'js 


'  '^. 


•■y 


v's 


A-* 

'W 

.  -.W» 


.  it—  •  . 

i'  ■  ' 

,  t,.  ..•'' 

^  {l  •'  '._ 

.-V,4  ',  '  .  ■*  ■  ''■  ’  ' 

'^•‘  ■'■  .  ‘  .  •' *—  •'  * '  -«sJI 

•^ '  "  J 

►  ♦ 


''^  • 


‘  /■ 


,  ^  "■  ■'  ■' '% 


0; 


,9 

\  ■ 


"  ^  t  >  ' 


*  _  '  •  ,  A  . 

'  .-oc  -- 


Okll  ,  *"  - 


K  '-..I 

4.  9. 

•  \ 


A 


K  *-'■•' 

■•.¥■*  .7 

V 


’■  J  '  % 

»  ^  *  f  ^  » 


'■*■•*  ,  ■"’*  Ti.  i  ”  *>■■%,<  •  *  '  ijSja 

'>■'  J^'  <  '^•''  '  ■  ''  ■.A  ,’'>“  ''X  v’^p 

,4.  -•ifer  .  ■  ^  '  '/A"'.  .■^  ^  K-.a't  ■■■'■'^ 

,  ■  A’-  r  ^  A 

■  '  *  ’  'i*"' *  ,'T!' 

,  -v-  ^yA: 


/.  '  ■'** 

■6 


V 


V 


u‘.>- 


f.  ‘ 


'it  ■  7' 
.-  ‘  '*'*^ 


- 

/ ' 


V 


'-v 


;  ,  '..UrMT- 

■'■  '  ‘  '•'  -  •’/'■  '^^''  'i. ' 

7*.  .  ‘  ■"'« 

jJ>'A  .  ,.  .<y  - 

■’■  *■  “',,,.  ■-  .  ■ 

:  *■. 


•9  .4 


''  ,  ■> 

*’  L  . 


■  f.  '*'. 


'  s.  ■  •  ^ 

-v  • 


,  1  . 


f  -  -  iiL  -  ^ 


:.>■ 


,  V 


,•'*.*  *w-  \*  ,  , 

>  ‘  '  ■  ■  ■ 

't  ‘ 

,>7  ; 


*’  * '  /  '  ..  lA*  * 

?  ■  -  ■■ ^  ' 


H  7 


i  % 


'  '  .  V. 


A-v®  "54 

•  ^  *  •  .  >4' '"4 

.  .  '  '/V.  ...'..A  •  .> 

'•1  ^ 

.V  (  ■■  V^' 

4  :■ 


\ 

C- 


V 

p. 


1 


*  TN  • 

‘  ^  '  .j^  ^  ^ 


THE  BOOK  OF 


_  <5  V 


•A  p  p  <:>  O  Q 


'i. 


ESTHER%«s,ws»?' 


IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

BY 


JACOB  HOSCHANDER,  Ph.D.  (Marburg) 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  COGNATE  LANGUAGES  IN  THE  DROPSIE  COLLEGE 


% 


PHILADELPHIA 
THE  DROPSIE  C  O  L  L  E  G  PI 
FOR  IIIiBREW  AND  COGNATIi  LEARNING 

1923 


i  <::::> 


PRINTED  IN  ENGLAND 
AT  THE  OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


BY  FREDERICK  HALL 


TO  MY  WIFE 


BERTHA  HOSCHANDER 

IN  AFFECTIONATE  APPRECIATION 
OF  HER  ENCOURAGEMENT  AND  DEEP  INTEREST  IN 

MY  STUDIES 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DEDICATED 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


'■'O 


\ 


/ 


$ 


https://archive.org/details/bookofestherinli00hosc_0 


PREFACE 


The  aim  of  the  present  book  is  to  interpret  the  Book 
of  Esther  from  the  historical  point  of  view  and  to  show  the 
historical  origin  of  the  Festival  of  Purim.  It  is  this 
historical  aspect  which  fundamentally  differentiates  the 
present  interpretation  from  all  previous  attempts  at  explain¬ 
ing  the  origin  of  the  Purim  F'estival  on  which  the  Biblical 
narrative  is  based,  as  in  none  of  them  has  there  been 
suggested  an  historical  reason,  drawn  from  non-Biblical 
sources,  for  the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews  during 
the  Persian  period.  The  very  fact,  however,  that  outside 
of  the  Biblical  narrative  which  attributes  this  danger  to  the 
enmity  of  a  Persian  grand  vizier  toward  a  single  Jewish 
individual,  nothing  was  known  from  external  historical 
sources  to  account  for  such  an  event,  was  reason  enough 
for  doubting  or  denying  altogether  its  historical  character. 
My  interpretation,  however,  is  based  upon  an  historical 
event  during  the  Persian  period,  well  known  from  non- 
Biblical  sources,  the  consequences  of  which  must  have  been 
disastrous  to  the  Jews  of  the  Persian  empire.  This  event 
I  considered  of  so  great  importance  for  the  Jews  of  the 
Persian  empire  that,  in  investigating  the  subject,  I  felt 
constrained  to  declare,  that  if  the  Book  of  Esther  had 
never  been  written,  historians  might  have  found  out,  that 
during  that  period  the  Persian  Jews  were  threatened  with 
complete  extermination.  The  real  problem  is  not,  whether 
such  an  event  did  happen,  but  how  the  Jews  escaped  the 
danger,  and  its  solution  is  presented,  I  claim,  in  the  Book 
of  Esther.  The  historical  event,  on  which  the  Biblical 
narrative  is  based,  is  treated  in  the  sixth  chapter. 


VI 


PREFACE 


In  placing  this  novel  interpretation  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  for  the  consideration  of  Biblical  and  Semitic  scholars, 
I  am  far  from  deluding  myself  into  the  belief  that  it  will 
immediately  find  ready  acceptance.  As  far  as  the  modern 
critics  are  concerned,  the  non-historical  character  of  the 
Book  of  Esther  is  at  present  with  them  the  standard 
opinion,  and  my  interpretation  would  come  into  collision 
with  what  may  be  properly  termed  a  dogmatic  bias. 
Conservative  scholars,  on  the  other  hand,  might  look 
askance  at  an  interpretation  of  a  Biblical  narrative,  which 
on  numerous  points  deviates  from  the  traditional  views. 
Hovv^ever,  the  only  aim  of  scholarship,  be  it  modern  or 
conservative,  is  truth,  and  if  my  solution  of  this  Biblical 
problem  has  attained  that  goal,  I  may  rest  assured  that  it 
will  finally  prevail,  notwithstanding  the  current  opinions. 

In  conclusion  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  special  in¬ 
debtedness  to  the  President  of  the  Dropsie  College, 
Doctor  Cyrus  Adler,  who  during  the  initial  stages  of  this 
investigation  and  later  during  its  preparation  for  publication 
assisted  me  with  helpful  criticism,  both  in  the  preparation 
of  the  manuscript  and  in  the  reading  of  the  proof. 

JACOB  HOSCHANDER. 

Dropsie  College, 

Philadelphia,  Pa., 

December,  1922. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

The  ill-fate  of  the  Book  of  Esther — The  Greek  version — The  apocryphal 
additions —Talmudic  interpretations — Luther’s  verdict — Modern  theories — 
Conservative  exegetes  —  Errors  of  the  interpreters  —  The  interpolators 
in  the  Maccabean  period — The  erroneous  identification  of  the  king  of 
Esther  ........  pp.  1-15 


CHAPTER  II 

The  improbability  of  Mordecai’s  genealogy  —  His  access  to  the 
harem — Haman’s  genealogy — The  etymology  of  his  proper  and  gentilic 
names  ........  pp.  16-29 


CHAPTER  HI 

The  author  of  Esther  as  an  historian — The  date  of  these  events — The 
extent  of  the  Persian  empire — The  coronation  festivities — Xerxes’  war  with 
Greece— His  queen  Amestris — The  Jews  outside  of  the  Persian  empire — 
The  diaspora — Jewish  persecutions  in  post-exilic  times — The  improbability 
of  Haman’s  decree — Xerxes’  character —  His  attitude  towards  the  Jews — 
The  new  possessions  of  Ahasuerus  ....  pp.  30-41 

CHAPTER  IV 

Ahasuerus’  identity  with  Artaxerxes  II  Mnemon — Plutarch’s  Life  of 
Artaxerxes — Plutarch’s  sources  and  their  reliability — Artaxerxes’  character — 
His  relations  to  the  Greeks — The  Peace  of  Antalcidas — The  rebellion  of 
Cyrus  the  Younger — The  date  of  the  battle  of  Cunaxa — Artaxerxes’ 
celebration  of  his  victory — His  domestic  life — Quarrels  between  his  queen 
and  his  mother — The  rule  of  the  harem — The  queen’s  disobedience — -Her 
degradation  and  murder — Her  name — Artaxerxes’  concubines— Artaxerxes’ 
suspicions  against  his  grandees — His  palace  at  Susa — The  name  Ahasuerus 
in  the  Hebrew  version — A  comparison  between  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes  H — 
The  resurrection  of  the  Persian  empire — The  Arsacides  alleged  descendants 
of  Artaxerxes  H  -  His  proper  name — The  uniformity  of  the  Scriptures — The 
name  Artaxerxes  in  the  Greek  version  ....  pp.  42-80 


Vlll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  V 

The  term  ^Judeans’ — The  renascence  of  Israel's  religion — National 
aspirations — The  religious  propaganda  among  the  exiles — Religious  creeds 
and  the  conduct  of  their  adherents — The  hatred  of  the  Babylonian  Jews 
toward  Babylonia — The  attitude  of  the  Judeans  in  Egypt  towards  this 
country — The  conduct  of  the  wealthy  Jews  in  Babylonia — The  cause  of 
persecutions — The  Judeans’  attitude  towards  the  Persians — Zoroaster’s 
‘monotheistic’  religion — The  characters  of  Mordecai  and  Esther — The  two 
opposing  tendencies  within  Judaism — Mordecai  versus  Ezra  and  Nehemiah — 
The  effect  of  the  religious  persecutions — The  predicament  of  the  Sopherim-- 
The  omission  of  all  religious  elements  in  the  Book  of  Esther — The  attitude 
of  the  Rabbis  towards  this  book — The  omission  of  the  names  of  Mordecai 
and  Esther  in  Sirach’s  Fathers  of  the  World  .  .  .  pp.  81-117 

,  CHAPTER  VI 

The  nature  of  the  danger  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Esther — The  intro¬ 
duction  of  anthropomorphic  images  into  the  Zoroastrian  religion — The 
reform  against  Zoroastrianism— Religion  and  state — Zoroastrianism  as  the 
supreme  religion  of  the  Persian  empire — Anahita  as  the  representative  and 
manifestation  of  Ahuramazda  —  The  effect  of  the  reform  —  A  Persian 
tradition — The  reform  affected  the  Jews — The  religious  persecutions — The 
strictly  religious  Jews — The  festivals  of  Anahita — Historical  reminiscences 
of  the  persecutions  ......  pp.  118-138 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  author  of  the  reform — The  success  of  the  reform  among  the 
Persians — The  resistance  of  the  Jews— The  contrary  effect  of  the  persecutions 
upon  them — Their  plea — Esther’s  relationship  to  Mordecai — His  identity 
among  Gentiles — The  necessity  of  his  having  some  position  at  the  court — 
His  discovery  of  a  conspiracy — His  attitude  towards  the  persecuted  Jews — 
His  refusal  to  bow  down  to  the  prime  minister — His  confession  of  being 
a  Jew — The  prime  minister’s  hesitation  to  punish  him — His  action  and  the 
creed  of  the  Jews — The  significance  of  the  casting  of  lots — The  simultaneity 
of  Purim  with  a  non-Jewish  festival — The  epagomena — Hainan’s  difficult 
task — The  Jews  in  Palestine — Hainan’s  accusation — His  aim — The  san¬ 
guinary  style  of  his  decree — His  promise  of  ten  thousand  talents — His 
wealth — The  king’s  investigations — The  early  promulgation  of  the  decree — 
Its  being  reconsidered  under  the  influence  of  wine  .  .  pp.  139-182 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


IX 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  effect  of  the  decree  upon  Mordecai — His  sources  of  information — 
The  numerous  Jewish  eunuchs — Esther’s  attitude  towards  the  calamity  of 
the  Jews — Mordecai’s  message — Esther’s  arguments — Mordecai’s  threats — 
Esther’s  compliance — Her  omission  to  request  an  audience  of  the  king — 
Her  difficult  task — Her  diplomacy — Her  invitation  of  Haman — The  advice  of 
Haman’s  friends — The  gallows — The  incident  of  the  honoring  of  Mordecai — 
The  king’s  inquiry — His  suspicions  of  the  prime  minister’s  disloyalty — 
The  king’s  apparel — A  lesson  in  modesty — The  king  being  ignorant  of 
Mordecai’s  creed — Haman’s  reflections — The  deliberation  under  the  influence 
of  wine — Esther’s  accusation  of  Haman — The  king’s  indecision — Haman’s 
plea  with  Esther  —  The  king’s  ridiculous  accusation  of  Haman  —  The 
covering  of  Haman’s  face — His  denunciation  by  Harbonah — A  parallel 
between  Tissaphernes’  and  Haman’s  fate — The  partiality  of  the  Jewish 
point  of  view  .......  pp.  183-229 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  infallibility  of  kings — The  forfeiture  of  Haman’s  property — The 
downfall  of  his  whole  family — The  king  being  acquainted  with  the  close 
relationship  of  Mordecai  to  Esther — His  reflections  upon  Mordecai’s  modesty 
and  Haman’s  ambition — The  attitude  of  the  people  of  Susa — The  law 
concerning  the  worship  of  Anahita  not  being  enforced — Its  resurrection 
under  Artaxerxes  III  Ochus — Haman’s  decree  being  still  in  force — Esther’s 
plea — The  king’s  point  of  view  —  The  sanguinary  style  of  Mordecai’s 
decree — The  interpolaters — The  decree  in  the  Greek  version — Its  remarkable 
addition — Mordecai  in  the  pomp  of  a  prime  minister — The  joy  of  the  people 
of  Susa — The  conversion  of  many  Gentiles — The  joy  of  the  Jews  at  being 
given  permission  to  defend  themselves — I'he  hope  of  their  enemies  to 
execute  Haman’s  decree — The  fight  at  Susa— The  Jews  being  attacked  on 
the  second  day — Haman’s  special  decree  for  Susa — The  exposing  of  the 
bodies  of  Haman’s  sons — The  number  of  the  slain  Gentiles — The  Festival  of 
Purim — The  attitude  of  the  Sopherim  towards  it — Its  secular  character  and 
Persian  features — Mordecai’s  Letter  of  Purim — The  ^  Fast  of  Esther  ’ — 
Mordecai’s  second  Letter  of  Purim — The  opposition  of  the  Sopherim — 
Purim  a  safeguard  against  Persian  persecutions — The  composition  of  the 
Book  of  Esther  in  a  later  period — The  Persian  annals — Mordecai’s  Persian 
name — His  characterization  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Esther  pp.  230-299 


b 


.1 


.1 ' 


' 

*  4*  4  1-^ 


'  .  4’ 


,  f* 


—  - 


'?>. 


»  ■  ■ 


/  . 


^1 


.t 


--.-)f*;' 


o  ^  .  ' 

■>  .  ■-.  .•*  ^  (■ 

■  f  ' 

,  \ 


'o  -  ,r  .O. 

.  'V  . 


•  *  — 


iV,. 


k.i ' 


#>  ■  ^ 


■  ,  ;<: 


'.  •  1  ■  i' 

■•'*;,  i  *• 

•  '^  ,  ■  > 

-’v,'  ' 

.  J- 

•  r  '•  ’  (.  ' 


V#  -  - 


■R^N..,' 


•  :  t  ,  •■■■  v  ,  -V?’  --  -  I 

If  .■.'*L"I 


t  / 

>•  ^ 


•  1 

■>  ^ 


.  y.  .  t 

'l  ■ '  v* 


i 


.  V  ‘ 


,-i: 


>.'••  vr 


, 


>.v  rt-  ,  . 


*•  *  .  1  . 


•v  t 

-> 


7 .  ; 


*  ■  A*  ■?- 

7  V 


.  ■•  ■  /  ‘AV! 
» ■  ■ 


-■  -'W 


4t  •  * 

’  -K. 


-i' ' ,, 


•I 


‘7  7 


.s 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE 
LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  I 

The  ill-fate  of  the  Book  of  Esther — The  Greek  version — The  apocryphal 
additions — Talmudic  interpretations — Luther’s  verdict — Modern  theories — 
Conservative  exegetes — Errors  of  the  interpreters — The  interpolators  in 
the  Maccabaean  period — The  erroneous  identification  of  the  king  of  Esther. 


If  there  were  any  truth  in  the  cabbalistic  maxim,  ‘  All 
depends  on  fate,  even  the  Scriptures  we  would  say  that 
the  Book  of  Esther  was  ill-fated  from  the  very  outset.  It 
relates  how  once  upon  a  time,  in  the  Persian  period, 
a  terrible  danger  to  the  Jews  was  averted  by  natural 
circumstances,  without  any  visible  divine  intervention.  In 
our  sceptical  age,  we  should  expect  such  a  story  to  be  held 
the  most  credible  of  all  the  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Just  the  contrary  has  happened.  None  among  them  is 
more  discredited  by  modern  exegetes,  except  a  few,  than 
this  story.  The  narrative  is  by  some  partly  doubted,  partly 
denied,  by  others  denied  altogether.  But  it  is  only  fair 
to  say  that  they  are  not  to  blame.^  The  current  interpreta- 


^  There  is,  however,  no, excuse  for  the  unfair  treatment  of  the  story 
of  Esther  by  not  a  few  of  the  modern  critics  who  are  not  satisfied  with 
demonstrating  its  unhistorical  character,  but  for  the  purpose  of  impressing 
upon  the  mind  of  the  reader  its  fabulous  absurdity,  frequently  distort  the 
facts  and  make  forced  interpretations.  The  arguments  and  theories  of 
many  of  them  would  be  more  convincing  if  they  were  presented  in  an 
objective  manner,  and  were  not  seasoned  with  abusive  language  directed 
at  the  contents  of  this  story,  its  tendency,  and  at  the  Jews  in  general.  For 


B 


11. 


I 


2  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

tion  hardly  admits  of  a  more  favourable  conclusion.  How¬ 
ever,  it  is  evident  that  already  in  antiquity  the  facts  had 
been  distorted  and  represented  in  a  false  light.  Interpreters 
who  lived  two  hundred  years  or  more  after  the  events  of 
the  story  occurred,  and  knew  nothing  about  the  real  issue 
of  those  events,  corrupted  the  text  according  to  their  own 
wrong  interpretations. 

The  Alexandrian  Jew  who  translated  the  story  into 
Greek — at  a  time,  however,  before  the  Hebrew  text  was 
greatly  corrupted — increased  the  perplexity.^  The  Greek 
version,  being  a  free  and  paraphrastic  translation,  naturally 
does  not  square  with  the  original  Flebrew  text.  But  the 
differences  touch  also  in  a  striking  manner  the  proper 
names, ^  a  fact  that  cannot  be  due  to  paraphrase  or 
exegesis.  This  phenomenon  gave  cause  to  suspect  the 
authenticity  of  the  Hebrew  text.^  No  other  satisfactory 


specimens  of  this  kind,  we  may  point  to  Carl  Siegfried,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Book  of  Esther  (in  Nowack’s  ^  Hand-Commentar  zum  Alten  Testa¬ 
ment’,  Gottingen,  1901) ;  Paul  de  Lagarde  in  his  essay  ‘  Purim  Gottingen, 
1887  ;  G.  Jahn  in  his  book  ^  Esther  ’,  Leiden,  1901 ;  see  also  note  26. 

2  For  the  various  Greek  and  Latin  versions  of  Esther,  cf.  B.  Jacob, 
^Esther  bei  den  LXX’  (in  Stade’s  Zeitschrift  filr  AlUesiametiiliche  Wissen- 
schnft,  Giessen,  1690,  pp.  241-98)  ;  L.  B.  Paton,  Critical  and  Exegeiical 
Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Esther,  New  York,  1908,  pp.  29-47  ;  P.  Haupt, 

^  Critical  Notes  on  Esther’  (in  Old  Testament  and  Semitic  Studies  in  Memory 
of  William  Rainey  Harper,  Chicago,  1908,  pp.  115-93)  ;  H.  Willrich,  ‘  Esther 
und  Judith’  (in  his  Judaica,  Gottingen,  pp.  1-28'),  and  G.  Jahn’s  book  cited 
above.  The  latter’s  Hebrew  rendering  of  the  Greek  version  is  an  amateurish 
biblical  parody,  but  several  of  his  observations  deserve  serious  consideration. 

2  See  Jacob,  /.  c.,  p.  271. 

^  Willrich,  1.  c.,  p.  15,  seriously  maintains  that  the  Book  of  Esther  was 
originally  written  in  Greek  and  subsequently  translated  into  Hebrew. 
There  is  no  need  to  discuss  this  impossible  view,  as  Willrich  himself 
reluctantly  concedes  that  the  Hebrew  text  in  several  places  exhibits  more 
originality  than  the  Greek  (p.  19,  n,  i),  and,  moreover,  confesses  that  he  is 
unable  to  examine  the  linguistic  character  of  the  former. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  3 


explanation  for  this  odd  divergence  has  been  forthcoming. 
This  difficulty  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  action  was  placed 
in  the  wrong  period.  The  difference  between  the  two 
versions  is  easily  explained  as  soon  as  we  know  that  Egypt 
was  not  a  part  of  the  Persian  empire  at  the  period  of  these 
events.^  Hence  the  Egyptian  Jews  were  not  involved  in 
the  decree  of  Haman,  and  probably  knew  nothing  about 
the  events  of  Purim.®  The  Alexandrian  translator,  who 
apparently  was  a  learned  and  pious  Jew,  may  have  lived  in 
Palestine  or  in  some  other  part  of  Syria  among  pious  Jews 
who  observed  the  festival  of  Purimd  Having  annually 
listened  to  the  reading  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  he  may  have 
known  it  fairly  well  by  heart,  but  could  not  remember 
correctly  most  of  the  proper  names.  After  returning  to 
his  own  country,  he  translated  this  story  for  the  edification 

^  Egypt  revolted  from  Persia  in  the  year  405  b.c.e.,  and  remained 
independent  for  a  period  of  sixty-five  years.  The  latter,  however,  never  • 
recognized  Egypt’s  independence,  and  frequently  made  futile  attempts  to 
reduce  it  to  obedience. 

®  We  thus  fully  agree  with  Willrich  (/.  c.,  p.  3),  that  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  had  neither  observed  the  festival  of  Purim,  nor  known  anything 
about  these  events,  before  the  stor^’  was  written  in  Greek,  But  we  go  still 
further  and  maintain,  that  even  after  they  had  become  acquainted  with  this 
story,  the  Alexandrian  Jews  had  no  cause  to  celebrate  the  events  of  Purim. 
This  festival  was  most  likely  introduced  into  Egypt  by  Palestinian  Jews  not 
long  before  the  destruction  of  the  Temple. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  pious  of  that  period  who  strictly 
observed  all  religious  ordinances  represented  only  a  small  fraction  of  the 
Jews.  The  common  people  had  abandoned  the  celebration  of  Purim  long 
ago.  Therefore,  there  was  no  reason  for  the  author  of  the  First  Book  of 
the  Maccabees  to  refer  to  the  latter  festival,  even  if  it  had  goincided  with 
Nicanor  Day,  w’hich  it  did  not.  Thus  the  objections  of  Willrich  and  all 
critics  on  this  point  are  unfounded.  Moreover,  if  Willrich  were  right  in 
his  assertion  that  the  author  of  the  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  assumes 
a  decidedly  hostile  attitude  towards  the  Pharisees,  we  could  not  expect  this 
author  to  mention  a  festival  observed  solely  by  this  pious  sect. 

B  2 


4  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


of  his  countrymen.  Not  having  had  a  Hebrew  copy  at 
his  disposal,  and  the  translation  not  having  been  intended 
for  liturgic  purposes,  but  merely  as  a  novel,  he  substituted 
numerous  fictitious  names  for  those  in  the  original.^ 

®  Jacob,  /.  c.,  pp.  266  ff.,  is  certainly  right  in  concluding  that  the  Greek 
version  is  a  free  translation  from  the  Hebrew  text.  But  that  alone  would 
not  account  for  the  proper  names,  as  Jacob  (p.  270,  n.  i)  freely  admits, 
which  with  the  exception  of  a  few  differ  entirely  from  those  of  the  Hebrew 
text  (cf.  Paton,  /.  c.,  pp.  66-71).  Furthermore,  a  free  translator  would 
hardly  omit  passages  without  paraphrasing  them,  and  would  rather  add  than 
omit.  Finally,  it  seems  improbable  that  he  should  have  paraphrased 
passages  in  a  way  which  show  the  story  in  a  different  light,  as  he  did  in 
the  passages  containing  the  decrees  of  Haman  and  Mordecai.  Jahn’s 
sweeping  assertion  that  the  Greek  version,  on  all  points,  resembles  more 
the  original  than  the  Masoretic  text,  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously.  Willrich’s 
view  that  the  story  was  originally  written  in  Greek  (see  n.  4),  cannot  be 
considered  at  all.  But  even  the  present  writer’s  explanation  that  the 
Greek  translator  did  not  have  a  Hebrew  copy  at  his  disposal  when  he  made 
his  translation,  is  not  free  from  objections.  It  is  incredible  that  the 
translator  should  not  have  remembered  the  name  of  Ahasuerus  which  occurs 
twenty-eight  times  in  the  story,  the  gentilic  noun  Agagi  which  occurs  six 
times,  and  especially  the  passage  :  ‘And  he  thought  scorn  to  lay  hands 
on  Mordecai  alone  ;  for  they  had  showed  him  the  people  of  Mordecai  ’ 
(3.  6)  which  is  of  vital  importance  for  the  understanding  of  the  main  event 
of  our  story.  But  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  the  Hebrew  text 
underwent  considerable  changes  after  it  had  been  translated  into  Greek. 
The  Alexandrian  translator  was  a  pious,  conscientious  Jew  and  a  good 
Hebrew  scholar  who,  though  paraphrasing  the  original  text  and  substituting 
fictitious  names,  did  not  consciously  omit  anything.  The  omissions  found 
are  due  to  his  exegesis.  Thus,  for  instance,  he  could  not  understand  the 
meaning  of  )r2V  “iinio'i  (i.  22),  lopnm  (2.  19), 

yjl  3'l"Tl  (5.  ii),  and  not  having  been  able  to  consult  the  original,  he 
attributed  the  difficulties  to  his  bad  memory,  and  omitted  them  altogether. 
He  may  have  known  and  applied  the  maxim  :  ‘  In  doubtful  cases,  omission 
is  preferable  to  doing  wrong’  Nor  could  he 

understand  the  difficult  passages  Dy  nNlUl  (9.  25), 

Dnpyn  nm  (9.  31),  dd  (10.  i),  but  in 

these  cases,  having  been  convinced  that  they  were  corrupt,  he  explained 
them  differently.  The  fact,  that  so  far  none  of  the  commentators  have  been 
able  to  explain  the  passages  quoted  satisfactorily,  leaves  no  doubt  that  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  5 


The  apocrypha)  writer  went  a  step  farther.^  To  his 
pious  mind  it  seemed  inconceivable  that  such  a  miraculous 

Greek  translator  was  a  good  Hebrew  scholar.  His  memory,  however, 
played  him  a  trick  as  to  the  date  of  Esther’s  elevation.  Since  the  twelfth 
month  played  so  important  a  part  in  the  events  of  Esther,  he  believed  tha': 
Esther’s  elevation  took  place  in  the  same  month.  This  wrong  date  proves 
again  that  he  translated  from  memory  ;  for  if  the  original  had  contained 
this  date,  there  was  not  the  least  reason  for  any  interpolator  to  place  that 
event  in  the  tenth  month.  As  for  the  decrees,  however,  the  translator 
neither  omitted  anything  nor  paraphrased  them,  but  presented  an  exact 
translation  (see  Chapter  IX).  The  passage  3.  6  is  undoubtedly  due  to 
a  late  interpreter  who  believed  that  Haman’s  decree  was  caused  by  his 
enmity  towards  Mordecai.  We  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  Greek 
translator  who  showed  us  that  the  original  Hebrew  author  was  quite 
innocent  of  this  stupidity.  As  to  the  name  Artaxerxes  in  the  Greek 
version,  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  the  Hebrew  text,  even  in  a  late 
period,  contained  the  name  (see  Chapter  IV).  The  gentilic 

noun  Agagi  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  not  original  either  (see  Chapter  II). 

^  The  Greek  version  has  at  the  end  a  subscription  giving  information 
about  its  authorship  and  date,  which  reads :  ‘  In  the  fourth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra,  Dositheus,  who  said  that  he  was  a  priest 
and  Levite,  and  Ptolemy  his  son,  brought  the  foregoing  letter  concerning 
Phrourai,  which  they  said  was  genuine,  and  that  Lysimachus,  son  of 
Ptolemy,  one  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  had  interpreted  it’  [’'Etovs  rerdpTov 
PaatXtvovTOS  IlToAe/^atot;  /cat  KkeonaTpas.  elorjveyKe  AocriOfos,  bs  €(pr]  elvai  lepevs 
Kal  AtviTTjs,  Kal  UroXeixaios  vlbs  avTOv,  T'qv  TTpofcetpevrjV  kniOToX^v  tuv  ^povpa'i, 
fjv  ecpaaav  elvaij  Kal  fjppL-qvevicevai  Avcripaxov  IlToAe/xatoi/,  toov  6V  'IfpovaaXrjp.). 
Jacob,  /.  c.,  p.  274,  maintains  that  the  king  Ptolemy  referred  to  in  this 
subscription  was  Ptolemy  VH,  Soterll,  Lathurus,  who  reigned  117-81  b.c.e., 
and  thus  the  introduction  of  our  story  into  Egypt  occurred  in  the  year  114, 
while  Willrich,  /.  c.,  p.  4  f.,  contends  that  this  king  was  Ptolemy  XIV,  and 
that  the  Book  of  Esther  was  composed  in  the  year  48  b.c.e.  However, 
both  of  them  are  wrong  as  far  as  the  date  of  the  Greek  version  is  concerned. 
The  subscription  does  not  refer  to  the  original  Greek  version  of  our  story. 
Willrich  himself  points  out  that  the  Alexandrian  scribe  was  not  convinced 
of  the  genuineness  of  this  Book  and  declined  to  take  any  responsibility  for 
it  (p.  3).  Jacob  likewise  observes  that  expressions  in  this  subscription 
indicate  something  like  distrust  (p.  276).  This  is  of  course  the  meaning 
of  the  clause  rjv  ecpaaav  eTvai.  What  reason  had  the  Alexandrian  scribe  to 
doubt  the  genuineness  of  this  Book  ?  The  Alexandrian  Jewish  scholars 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  preservation  of  so  many  apocr3'pli>il  books 


6  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


event  should  be  narrated  unless  abounding  in  religious 
sentiments,  and  he  believed  it  to  be  a  meritorious  deed  to 
improve  upon  its  contents  by  representing  the  chief  Jewish 
figures  in  the  story  as  saints  in  Israel.  This  representation, 
though  obviously  contrary  to  the  facts,  was  nevertheless 
generally  accepted  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  Flavius 
Josephus,  in  his  Antiquities^  moulded  into  his  story  of 
Esther  both  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  versions — though  more 
of  the  latter  than  of  the  former  — and  considerable  parts 

were  not  so  hypercritical  as  to  doubt  the  event  of  Purim.  With  the 
exception  of  Sirach,  none  of  the  apocryphal  books  has  a  subscription. 
Paton,  l.c.,  p.  30,  observes:  ‘A  more  serious  objection  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  subscription  is  the  fact  that  it  stands  at  the  end  of  the  long  additions 
that  seem  to  come  from  a  different  hand  from  that  of  the  original  translator’. 
However,  this  fact  does  not  prove  that  the  subscription  is  not  genuine. 
There  had  been  a  well-known  Greek  version  of  Esther  long  before  the 
arrival  of  Dositheus.  But  the  latter  brought  another  version,  enlarged  and 
interpolated  by  additions,  and  asserted  that  it  was  the  genuine  story  of 
Esther  translated  from  the  Hebrew  text,  contending  that  the  old  version 
was  defective.  Therefore,  the  Alexandrian  scribe  who  copied  it  rightly 
doubted  his  assertion,  and  declined  to  accept  any  responsibility  for  its 
truth.  The  original  Greek  version  was  undoubtedly  made  in  a  pre- 
Maccabaean  period.  This  seems  to  be  the  true  reason  why  the  Book  of 
Esther  is  the  only  historical  book  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament  that  has 
a  subscription. 

We  cannot  agree  with  Jacob,  /.  c.,  p.  291,  that  Josephus  faithfully 
follows  LXX,  and  Jahn,  /.  c.,  p.  x,  is  perfectly  right  on  this  point.  Josephus 
calls  Haman  an  Amalekite,  which  can  be  only  a  translation  of  Agagi  of 
the  Hebrew  text,  while  the  Greek  vej-^ion  has  instead  of  it  ^ov^aio's.  Then 
Josephus  quotes  the  passage  which  LXX  omits  (see  n.  8). 

Further,  he  gives  the  names  of  the  two  conspiring  eunuchs  D'lni  |ri23,  but 
appears  to  have  read  DllTl  |n33 ,  which  are  omitted  in  LXX.  Finally,  in 
accordance  with  the  Hebrew  text,  he  states  that  the  Jews  slew  seventy-five 
thousand  Gentiles,  while  LXX  knows  only  of  fifteen  thousand.  Nevertheless, 
Josephus  evidently  preferred  the  Greek  version  for  his  purpose.  He  may 
have  done  so  for  linguistic  reasons.  A  Jew  translating  the  Old  Testament 
into  a  foreign  tongue  would  for  the  most  part,  if  possible,  make  use  of  and 
adhere  to  the  expressions  of  the  already  existing  version.  We  can  there¬ 
fore  understand  why  Josephus  should  have  made  use  of  expressions  of  LXX 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  7 


of  the  apocryphal  additions,  embellishing  them  with  some 
exegesis,  probably  of  his  ownd^  Origen^^  declared  the 
Greek  version  and  its  additions  canonicald^ 

Though  the  use  of  the  expression  ‘  common  sense  ’  is 
a  platitude,  we  cannot  refrain  from  asserting  that  common 
sense  has  played  no  part  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Book 
of  Esther,  either  in  ancient  or  in  modern  times.  The 
Rabbis,  by  their  homiletic  interpretations,  contributed  not 
a  little  to  change  this  strictly  historical  narrative  into  an 
incredible  fabled^  A  few  among  them  seem  to  have  felt 
that  there  was  something  strange  about  this  book.^^  But, 
as  a  rule,  the  talmudic  and  midrashic  sayings  concerning 
the  events  of  our  story  are  not  of  the  least  value  for 
exegesis,^®  and  in  all  probability  were  not  intended  to  be. 
Notwithstanding  this  obvious  fact,  we,  even  in  our  critical 

age,  still  follow  time-honoured  talmudic  interpretations 

(Jacob,  /.  c.,  p,  262).  On  the  other  hand,  his  Antiquities  was  written  for 
Gentiles,  and  therefore  his  intention  may  have  been  that  his  version  of 
Esther  should  be  in  accordance  with  that  written  in  Greek  which  might 
have  been  known  to  the  critics  of  his  period. 

We  do  not  agree  with  Baton,  /.  c.,  p,  39,  that  Josephus’s  additions 
are  derived  from  an  early  form  of  Jewish  Midrash,  as  no  trace  of  them 
is  found  in  the  talmudic  literature.  His  representation  is  a  mixture  of  truth 
and  fiction. 

12  In  his  letter  to  Julius  Africanus,  3.  Cf.  Baton,  /.  r.,  p.  34. 

See  especially  Talmud  Babli  Megillah  ioa-i6b,  and  cf.  Baton,  /.  c., 

pp.  18-24  and  97-104. 

See  Chapter  V. 

The  talmudic  chronology  concerning  the  date  of  our  story  is  of  no 
value  at  all.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  Talmud,  Midrash,  and  Targumim, 
Mordecai  is  represented  as  a  contemporary  of  Zerubbabel  (see  Ezra  2.  2,  &c.). 
But  in  Talmud  Babli  Menahot  65  a,  we  find  the  same  Mordecai  as  the 
contemporary  of  Hyrcanus  and  Aristobulus.  This  fact  appears  to  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  all  critics.  Willrich  might  have  made  it  the  basis  of 
his  theory  that  the  Book  of  Esther  was  written  48  b.c.  e.  (see  n.  8),  if  he 
had  known  it 


8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


which  obscure  the  right  understanding  of  the  book.  Some 
exegetes  are  apparently  over-fond  of  the  rabbinical  sayings, 
gleefully  quoting  and  exploiting  them  for  the  purpose  of 
stamping  the  story  as  legend.^^  It  is  even  possible  that 
modern  critics  would  hardly  have  hit  upon  the  idea  of 
seeing  a  legend  in  this  story,  if  Talmud,  Midrash,  and 
Targumim  had  not  embellished  it  with  their  exaggerated 
fablesd®  It  is  regrettable  to  see  that  the  strict  line  drawn 
by  the  mediaeval  Jewish  commentators  between  ‘exegesis’ 
and  ‘  homiletics  ’  is  completely  ignored  by 

modern  scholarsd^  Many  of  the  rabbinical  sayings  dealing 
with  Esther  are  of  such  a  character  that  we  cannot  but 
believe  that  they  were  witty  and  homiletic  remarks,  partly 
to  amuse,  partly  to  exhort,  the  audience  gathered  around 
the  Purim-table.^^ 

Martin  Luther’s  condemnation  of  the  Book  of  Esther 
in  his  Table-Talks'.  ‘I  am  so  hostile  to  this  book  that 
I  wish  it  did  not  exist,  for  it  Judaizes  too  much,  and  has 

Characteristic  in  this  respect  is  Paton’s  Commentary.  As  a  book  of 
reference  it  is  an  exceedingly  valuable  work.  But  with  all  modern  critics 
he  holds  the  story  of  Esther  to  be  a  mere  fable.  In  order  to'  prove  this 
point,  he  employs  a  peculiar  method.  His  exegesis  in  the  main  is  actually 
based  upon  the  Talmud,  Midrash,  and  Targumim.  Though  on  every  point 
he  quotes  numerous  opinions,  his  general  contention  is  that  the  only  correct 
explanation  of  the  points  under  discussion  is  given  by  the  rabbis,  and,  since 
the  facts,  according  to  their  explanations,  could  not  have  occurred, — ergo 
the  whole  story  is  not  true.  Cf.  also  Siegfried,  /.  c.,  p.  163,  and  Jahn, 
/.  r.,  p.  48. 

Paton’s  observation  (/.  r,,  p.  18)  is  interesting :  ^They  (the  Targumim) 
show  a  fine  feeling  for  the  Hebrew  idiom  and  are  exceedingly  suggestive  to 
the  modern  interpreter’.  So  they  are,  as  many  theories  of  the  modern 
interpreters  have  been  suggested  by  them. 

Paton,  1.  c.,  p.  100,  does  indeed  point  out  the  difference  between 
and  and  nevertheless  treats  the  latter  as  serious  rabbinical  exegesis. 

See  Talmud  Babli  Megillah  7  a. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


9 


too  much  heathen  naughtiness/  largely  contributed  to 
prejudice  the  mind  of  Protestant  theologians  in  dealing 
with  it.^^ 

As  early  as  the  eighteenth  century,  scholars  began  to 
doubt  the  veracity  of  many  facts  described  in  Esther,  as 
they  seemed  to  be  contradictory  to  the  customs  of  the 
Persians  recorded  by  Herodotus,  and  pronounced  them 
unhistorical.^'^  The  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries 
actually  teem  with  hypotheses  concerning  both  the  origin 
of  Purim  and  the  contents  of  our  story.^^  There  is  no 
exaggeration  in  declaring  that  it  is  easier  to  believe  in  the 
most  improbable  tales  of  antiquity  than  in  these  theories 
which  are — with  hardly  any  exception — flimsy,  vague,  and 
incredible.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  and  refute  them, 
as  this  has  already  been  done — successfully  and  con¬ 
vincingly — by  Siegmund  Jampel.^^  But  it  is  hardly  fair 
to  condemn  the  Talmud,  as  most  of  the  modern  com¬ 
mentators  do,  for  holding  the  Book  of  Esther  higher  than 
the  Books  of  the  Prophets.^®  The  Rabbis  were  not  Bible 

In  his  works,  edited  by  Walsh,  VII,  194  ;  XXII,  2080.  On  Luther’s 
opinion,  cf.  A.  P.  Stanley,  The  History  of  the  Jeivish  Church,  New  York, 
1879,  III,  p.  194.  Paton,  I.C.,  p.  96,  observes  that  Luther’s  verdict  is  not 
too  severe.  Paton  shares  this  attitude  with  numerous  Protestant  theologians 
who  approach  this  subject  with  the  pre-conceived  idea  of  justifying  Luther’s 
verdict. 

But  there  were  a  few  Protestant  commentators  who,  notwithstanding 
their  veneration  for  Luther’s  personality,  had  the  courage  to  blame  him  for 
his  subjective  judgement,  as  did  Carl  Friedrich  Keil,  in  his  commentary  on 
Esther,  p.  613. 

For  the  literature  of  the  eighteenth  century,  see  Paton,  /.  c.,  p.  in  f. 

Cf,  Paton,  I.C.,  pp.  77-94  and  111-117. 

Das  Biich  Esther,  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1907,  pp.  45  ff. 

Emil  Kautzsch,  in  his  Geschichie  des  Alttestamentlichen  Schrifttums, 
Freiburg,  1892,  p.  117,  vehemently  denounces  the  Jews  for  holding  the 
Book  of  Esther  in  such  high  honour,  and  considers  it  his  duty  as  a  Christian 
to  protest  against  it.  Similar  opinions  are  expressed  by  Riehm,  Wildeboer, 


lO  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


critics,  and  believed  in  every  syllable  of  our  story.  There¬ 
fore  how  could  they  have  thought  differently?  Of  what  use 
would  have  been  the  Prophets,  if  the  Jewish  people  had 
been  exterminated  ?  In  their  belief,  the  words  of  the 
Prophets  and  even  the  Pentateuch  would  have  disappeared, 
if  the  Jewish  people  had  not  been  saved  by  Mordecai  and 
Esther.  The  Fathers  of  the  Church,  in  declaring  the  Book 
of  Esther  canonical,  reasoned  exactly  like  the  Rabbis  : 
p[f  there  had  not  been  Purim,  Christianity  would  not  have 
existedj 

All  the  modern  critics  agree  that  our  story  was  invented. 
Even  Kautzsch,  who  is  a  moderate  critic,  is  unable  to  find 


Cornill,  and  others.  They  do  not  consider  that  Purim,  according  to  the 
current  conception,  commemorates  an  historical  event  unequalled  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Jews,  their  escape  from  complete  annihilation,  and 
‘‘  all  that  a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life  ’ ;  therefore  it  is  natural  that 
the  Book  that  records  this  event  should  be  held  in  the  highest  esteem 
among  the  Jews.C.Even  from  a  purely  ethical  point  of  view,  this  Book  is 
not  inferior  to  the  other  Scriptures,  as  it  teaches  the  great  lesson,  not 
found  in  the  latter,  that  Providence  may  rule  the  destiny  of  man  by  natural 
circumstances,  without  visible  intervention  ;  and  this  lesson  was  the  hope 
and  comfort  of  the  Jews  whose  existence  was  extremely  precarious  during 
the  last  two  millenniums.  It  is  wrong  to  see  in  the  celebration  of  Purim 
the  spirit  of  revenge.  The  Jews  do  not  rejoice  at  the  hanging  of  Haman, 
but  at  their  own  escape,  firmly  believing  that  their  own  destruction  would 
have  been  inevitable,  if  Haman  had  been  left  alive.  Scholars  ought  to  be 
more  objective,  put  aside  their  personal  sentiments,  and  be  able  to  compre¬ 
hend  also  the  Jewish  point  of  view  in  dealing  with  this  Book,  It  is 
regrettable  to  find  views  such  as  are  expressed  by  E.  Bertheau,  that  in 
this  Book  we  find  that  spirit  of  Israel  which  does  not  trust  in  God,  but 
in  its  own  power,  and  which  refused  to  embrace  Salvation  when  it  came  to 
them  {Die  Bucher  Esra,  Nehemia,  und  Esther  by  Bertheau- Ryssel,  Leipzig, 
1887,  p.  375).  Paton,  /.  c.,  p.  97,  observes  :  ^  With  the  verdict  of  late 
Judaism  modern  Christians  cannot  agree’.  But  is  this  verdict  the  only 
point  of  disagreement  between  late  Judaism  and  modern  Christians  ?  Do 
not  the  latter  regard  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  partly  legendary,  partly 
fabrication,  and  the  secular  history  of  Israel,  in  the  main,  untrustworthy  ? 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  ir 


an  historical  nucleus  in  it,  and  considers  it  romance.^^ 
Driver,  who  cannot  be  accused  of  prejudice,  declares  that 
‘  it  is  not  strictly  historical,  though  it  cannot  reasonably 
be  doubted  that  it  has  a  substantially  historical  basis.’ 
There  are  only  a  few  scholars  who  see  in  our  story  a  really 
historical  event.^^  Paulus  Cassel’s  commentary,^®  notwith¬ 
standing  its  homiletic  character  and  the  numerous  Christo- 
logical  remarks  which  have  no  bearing  on  the  story,  is  full 
of  sound  judgement  and  contains  a  great  many  historical 
parallels  and  reminiscences  which  shed  light  on  the  events. 
It  is  a  storehouse  of  real  information.  But  it  is  extremely 
conservative,  and  sees  in  Mordecai  and  Esther  the  most 
splendid  characters  and  heroes  of  Israel.  One  of  the  best 
attempts* in  recent  years  is  Jampel’s  book  cited  above.^^ 
With  a^reat  array  of  arguments  he  tries  to  prove  that  all 
the  events  narrated  in  Esther  might  have  happened  under 
the  reign  of  Xerxes. 

In  the  present  writer’s  opinion,  however,  all  the  com¬ 
mentators  have  been  on  the  wrong  track.  The  facts, 
as  already  stated,  were  misrepresented  in  ancient  times, 
and  modern  interpreters  have  placed  the  action  in  the 

wrong  period.  If  we  may  depend  upon  undeniably 

\ 

historical  facts,  we  are  justified  in  contending  that  the 
Book  of  Esther  is  strictly  historical.  We  even  maintain 
that,  if  this  book  had  never  been  written,  historians  might 
have  found  out  that  at  the  period  in  which  we  place  this 
action  the  Jews  were  threatened  with  complete  extermina¬ 
tion.  The  question  is  not  whether  this  event  did  happen, 

2’^  Geschichte  des  Alti.  Schriftt.^  p.  ii6. 

An  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  New  York,  1898,  p.  453. 

See  the  bibliography  of  the  conserv^ativ'e  treatises,  marked  with  C,  by 
Paton,  1.  c.,  p,  1 13. 

Das  Buck  Esther^  Berlin,  1891 


See  n.  25. 


12  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


but  how  the  Jews  escaped  the  danger.  The  solution  of 
this  problem  is  presented  in  the  Book  of  Esther. 

The  main  event  of  the  story  actually  happened  under 
Persian  rule,  though  not  in  the  feign  of  Xerxes.  The  Jews 
had  indeed  been  in  danger  of  extermination,  though  not  in 
the  sense  generally  understood.  Many  of  the  statements 
our  story  contains  find  their  support  in  historical  facts.  As 
for  the  others,  they  are  absolutely  credible  as  far  as  they 
are  original.  For  this  book  was  considerably  interpolated 
at  a  later  period.  The  reason  is  not  hard  to  explain.  We 
must  bear  in  mind  that  the  real  danger  impending  over  the 
Jews  was  a  tempest  in  a  teapot:  the  whole  excitement 
did  not  last  more  than  four  days,  in  Susa  as  welLas  in  all 
parts  of  the  empire.^^  With  the  death  of  Haman  and  the 
elevation  of  Mordecai,  the  condition  of  the  Jews  was  no 
longer  desperate.  All  the  exegetes  appear  to  have  over¬ 
looked  this  fact.  An  event  of  this  short  duration  did  not 
make  a  lasting  impression. Its  commemoration  was 
no  doubt  annually  observed  by  pious  Jews.  But  the  com¬ 
mon  people,  after  a  few  generations,  may  have  neglected 
it,  or  may  have  feasted  on  Purim  without  caring  about  the 
origin  of  the  festival. They  may  have  doubted  the  whole 
story,  as  Jews  in  prosperity  soon  forget  troubles  of  former 

32  By  the  splendid  royal  post  under  the  Achaemeneian  rulers  (see 
Eduard  Meyer,  Geschichte  des  Alterthums,  III,  p.  66  f.),  the  overthrow  of 
Haman  and  the  elevation  of  Mordecai  must  have  been  known  to  the  officials 
everywhere,  a  few  days  after  the  arrival  of  Haman’s  edict. 

33  We  shall  see  that  there  were  religious  persecutions,  preceding  Haman’s 
decree,  which  lasted  for  several  years.  But  these  persecutions  were  of 
a  sporadic  character,  as  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Jews  had  not  been  affected 
by  them  (see  Chapter  VI). 

3^  Numberless  Jews  in  the  present  age  are  doing  exactly  the  same,  in 
enjoying  the  customary  dishes  prepared  for  certain  festivals  with  great 
relish,  without  caring  in  the  least  for  the  religious  character  of  the  latter 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  13 


days,  and  as  the  danger  could  not  reasonably  be  accounted 
for,  it  was  looked  upon  as  an  incredible  tale.  The  Jews  did 
not  remain  untouched  by  the  scepticism  prevailing  in  the 
Alexandrian  age.  Living  unmolested  under  the  mild  sway 
of  the  Lagidae  and  the  first  Seleucids,  the  Jews  did  not 
believe  that  a  man  like  Haman  had  ever  existed,  or  that 
a  king  should  have  decreed  the  extermination  of  their 
ancestors.  The  Book  of  Esther  became  popular  with  them 
under  the  rule  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (i  75-164  B.  c.  E.) 
and  his  successors,  when  they  met  everywhere  with 
numerous  men  of  the  type  of  Haman  intent  upon  destroy¬ 
ing  them.  In  those  times  of  terror  they  looked  for 
comfort  to  the  Scriptures.  They  found  only  one  book  in 
which  a  similar  event  had  been  recorded — the  Book  of 
Esther.  At  that  late  period  the  actual  events  under 
Persian  rule  which  had  almost  caused  the  destruction  of 
the  Jewish  people  were  no  longer  known.  Being  now 
popular,  this  book  became  the  favourite  theme  of  the 
preachers  and  an  object  of  special  study.  The  teachers 
who  had  to  explain  it  to  the  people  made  wrong  inter¬ 
pretations,  which  subsequently  were  incorporated  into  the 
story.  We  may  well  assume  that  for  the  purpose  of 
impressing  upon  the  people  the  necessity  of  being  united, 
and  exhorting  them  to  fight  one  for  all  and  all  for  one, 
the  preachers  in  their  sermons  took  as  their  theme  the 
decree  of  Haman,  and  explained  to  their  congregations 
that  the  latter  intended  to  exterminate  all  the  Jews  on 
account  of  a  single  individual.  We  know  that  the  Jews 
of  that  period  were  unwilling  to  resist  their  enemies  and 
to  fight  for  their  independence,  and  their  leaders  had  to 
use  any  means  for  inducing  them  to  do  so  by  arousing 
their  fear  and  hatred.  To  encourage  the  people  to  fight 


14  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


their  enemies  without  fear,  the  preachers  told  their  congre¬ 
gations  about  the  heroic  deeds  of  their  ancestors,  who 
killed  75,000  men  in  one  day  without  losing  a  single  man. 
The  Edomites,  the  hereditary  enemies  of  Israel,  were  no 
less  hostile  at  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  until  conquered 
by  Hyrcanus.  Therefore  Haman  may  by  some  witty 
preacher  of  the  time  have  been  made  a  descendant  of 
Esau,  by  changing  the  gentilic  name  into 

Paul  Haupt  is  partly  right  in  observing:  ‘The  spirit  of 
revenge  that  breathes  through  the  Book  of  Esther  and 
manifests  itself  in  the  celebration  of  Purim  seems  perfectly 
natural  as  soon  as  we  know  that  the  book  was  written 
during  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  after  the  Syrians  had 
committed  unspeakable  atrocities  in  Judaea.’^®  These 
interpretations  were  later  inserted  into  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  Alexandrian  translator  was  unfamiliar  with  them.^'^ 
When  we  understand  the  historical  events  which  form 
the  background  of  the  story,  the  social  and  moral  state 
of  the  Jews  of  the  period,  and  the  psychological  motives 
of  the  chief  figures,  our  story  will  be  viewed  in  a  different 
light :  Mordecai  and  Esther  will  lose  their  nimbus,  Haman 
his  terror,  and  Ahasuerus’s  decree  against  the  Jews  will  no 
more  be  ascribed  to  his  imbecility.  Words  or  passages 

See  n.  8. 

56  Purint^  Baltimore,  1906.  This  paper  contains  numerous  ingenious 
suggestions.  However,  the  theories  advanced  there  for  the  origin  of 
Purim  and  for  the  prototypes  of  Ahasuerus,  Haman,  Mordecai,  and  Esther 
are  impossible,  as  Paton,  1.  c.,  pp.  80-82,  has  already  pointed  out.  But 
P.  Haupt  is  the  only  modern  critic  who  is  absolutely  fair  in  his  treatment 
of  this  story.  However,  on  some  points  he  goes  too  far.  The  Jews  in 
post-exilic  times  were  never  persecuted  on  account  of  their  nationality ; 
thus  the  persecutions  of  the  Russian  Jews  do  not  present  a  parallel  to  those 
described  in  the  Book  of  Esther. 

See  Chapter  II. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  15 

contradictory  to  our  interpretation  will  easily  be  recognized 
as  later  additions.  But  we  must  draw  a  line  between 
additions  and  changes  due  either  to  exegetes  or  to  errors 
of  copyists  and  changes  owing  to  circumstances  over  which 
the  Jews  had  no  control.  The  name  Ahasuerus,  which  is 
undoubtedly  identical  with  Xerxes,  had  been  substituted 
for  the  real  name  of  the  king,  for  obvious  reasons.  In  the 
Eastern  countries  under  the  rule  of  the  Arsacids,  this 
change  was  made  rather  early ;  in  the  West  at  a  later 
period,  at  the  time  of  the  fixing  of  the  Canon.  This 
fictitious  name  led  the  modern  commentators  astray. 
Those  who  gave  credence  to  the  story  contended  that 
Xerxes  was  quite  capable  of  doing  all  the  silly  actions 
ascribed  to  Ahasuerus,  and  made  more  or  less  successful 
attempts  at  reconciling  these  events  with  the  historical 
facts  recorded  by  Herodotus.  But  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  exegetes  rightly  rejected  these  forced  inter¬ 
pretations.  .^^rThere  is,  indeed,  no  room  for  doubt  that  the 
Ahasuerus  of  Esther  cannot  be  identical  with  Xerxes,  as 
we  hope  to  prove  in  the  third  chapter,  v' 


l6  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 
2.  5^  6. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  improbability  of  Mordecai’s  genealogy — His  access  to  the  harem — 
Haman’s  genealogy — The  etymology  of  his  proper  and  gentilic  names. 

Before  proceeding  to  outline  our  own  conception  of 
the  story  of  Esther,  we  consider  it  necessary  to  investigate 
some  objections  of  a  general  character,  though  they  have 
no  bearing  on  our  own  interpretation.  These  objections, 
raised  by  all  modern  critics,  appear  to  throw  doubt  on  the 
veracity  of  the  author  of  the  book,  and  to  betray  a  certain 
tendency  to  present  an  artificial  contrast  between  two 
hostile  races.  Though  others  have  already  dealt  with  this 
subject,  their  conclusions  are  not  quite  satisfactory. 

(i)  There  is  a  chronological  question  of  the  highest 
importance.  The  author  states :  ‘  There  was  a  certain 
Jew  in  Shushan  the  palace,  whose  name  was  Mordecai, 
the  son  of  Jair,  the  son  of  Shimei,  the  son  of  Kish,  a 
Benjamite;  who  had  been  carried  away  from  Jerusalem 
with  the  captivity  which  had  been  carried  away  with 
Jeconiah  king  of  Judah,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king 
of  Babylon  had  carried  away  According  to  this  state¬ 
ment,  Mordecai,  as  fellow  captive  of  Jeconiah  (  =  Jehoiachin), 
was  carried  into  captivity  in  the  year  597  B.C.E.  Shall  we 
then  believe  that  123  years  later  he  became  prime  minister, 
in  the  12th  year  of  Xerxes’  reign,  in  the  year  474  B.C.E.  ? 
But  those  who  raise  this  question  do  not  entertain  any 
doubt  that  Kish,  the  ancestor  of  Mordecai  mentioned  in 
his  genealogy,  is  identical  with  the  father  of  Saul,  the  first 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  IJ 


king  of  Israel.  Accordingly,  the  clause  ‘  who  had  been 
carried  away  ’  (n5?:in  can  only  refer  to  Mordecai,  and  not 
to  Kish.  However,  this  identification  is  by  no  means  certain 
and  is  indeed  emphatically  denied  by  Ibn  Ezra.’  Then 
there  is  no  reason  why  this  clause  should  not  refer  to  Kish 
and  not  to  Mordecai.^  Wildeboer,^  Siegfried,^  and  many 
other  modern  commentators  refuse  to  accept  this  explana¬ 
tion,  as  it  would  be  against  the  Masoretic  division,  which 
places  this  clause  at  the  beginning  of  the  following  verse. 
But  they  themselves  often  completely  disregard  the 
Masoretic  text,  and  would  be  correct  in  doing  so  here. 
Cassel  is  right  in  observing :  ‘  One  cannot  imagine  it 
possible  that  biblical  commentators  should  have  hit  upon 

^  Ibn  Ezra  ad  locum  remarks  :  Kish,  mentioned  in  Mordecai’s 

genealogy,  referred  to  the  father  of  Saul,  the  author  of  Esther  would  have 
mentioned  the  latter,  since  he  was  king  and  not  his  father  ’  rf’il 

rnN  NIH  No  notice  has  been  taken 

* 

of  this  reasonable  observation  by  the  modern  critics. 

2  The  relative  clause  occurs  also  elsewhere,  as  i  Chron.  5.  4-6, 

where  refers  to  IJn  n“lNn  and  Ezra  2.  i,  where 

the  clause  refers  to  the  preceding  noun  and 

not  to  njnion 

^  Die  fiinf  Megillot,  in  Marti's  Kurzer  Haud-Commentar  zum  Alien 
Testament^  Freiburg  i.  B,,  1898,  180. 

^  In  his  commentary  on  Esther,  1.  c.,  p.  148.  We  must  consider  that 
the  chronological  knowledge  of  the  Masoretes  was  no  more  exact  than  that 
of  the  rabbis,  who  consider  Mordecai  a  contemporary  of  Zerubbabel  (see 
Chapter  I,  n.  16)  and  place  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  within  the  seventy 
years  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity.  We  may  further  presume  that  the 
Masoretes  accepted  in  good  faith  the  talmudic  interpretation  of  the  name 

‘pure  myrrh’  =  "lill  "IID,  and  thus  did  not  know 
that  Mordecai  was  a  purely  Babylonian  name.  Therefore  the  Masoretes 
had  no  reason  not  to  refer  the  clause  n^:in  TJ’N  to  Mordecai.  The  latter 
might  have  been  carried  away  into  captivity  in  his  childhood,  and  was  still 
alive  in  the  period  of  this  story.  Besides,  the  Masoretes  may  have  earnestly 
believed  that  Kish  in  Mordecai’s  genealogy  referred  to  the  father  of  Saul. 

C 


H. 


l8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


such  a  monstrosity,  in  referring  the  statement  of  Jeconiah’s 
exile  to  Mordecai.’^  Moreover,  the  purely  Babylonian 
name  that  Mordecai  bears  evidently  shows  that  the  author 
did  not  intend  to  say  that  he  was  born  in  Jerusalem.  We 
would  have  to  assume  that  the  Persian-Jewish  author®  did 
not  know  that  Mordecai  was  a  Babylonian  name,  at  a  time 
when  the  cult  of  Marduk  was  still  in  existence.  Wildeboer 
asserts  that  the  author  clearly  indicates  that  it  was  not  his 
intention  to  give  a  real  genealogy.”^  There  is  not  the  least 
ground  for  such  an  assertion,  as  the  identification  of  Kish 
with  the  father  of  Saul  is  at  least  doubtful.  Siegfried 
remarks ;  ‘  By  the  brevity  of  the  genealogy,  the  author,  in 
omitting  a  few  members  of  it,  skips  over  the  times  of  Saul 
to  Kish.’  But  did  the  author  omit  merely  a  few  members 

^  Das  Buck  Esther^  P*  5i* 

®  Seeing  that  our  author  was  well  informed  on  Persian  manners  and 
institutions,  a  fact  that  is  almost  generally  conceded,  and  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  Persian  language,  a  fact  that  only  those  critics  deny  w'ho  are  not 
authorities  on  Persian  philology,  as  Jampel  truly  remarks,  we  may  safely 
assume  that  the  author  was  not  a  Palestinian  Jew.  P.  Haupt  {Purim^ 
p.  3;  Critical  Notes,  p.  116)  believes  that  he  was  a  Persian  Jew.  In  the 
present  writer's  opinion,  however,  the  Book  of  Esther  was  written  in 
Babylonia  (see  Chapter  V)  ;  and  at  that  period  the  Babylonian  Jews  were 
just  as  well  acquainted  with  Persian  manners,  institutions,  and  language  as 
were  the  Persian  Jews.  But  Haupt  from  his  own  point  of  view  must 
assume  that  the  author  was  a  Persian  Jew,  since  he  contends  that  Esther 
was  written  after  the  Maccabean  period,  and  at  that  time  Persian  Jews 
only  could  have  been  so  thoroughly  acquainted  with  Persian  manners, 
institutions,  and  language. 

Paton,  /.  r.,  p.  167,  concedes  that  Jair  may  have  been  the  father  of 
Mordecai.  The  reason  for  his  concession  seems  to  be,  because  he  cannot 
discover  an  ancient  bearer  of  this  name  among  the  Benjamites.  Shimei, 
however,  cannot  have  been  the  father  of  Jair,  since  there  once  existed  a  man 
belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  whose  name  was  Shimei  son  of  Gera 
(2  Sam.  16.  6,  &c.).  Nor  can  Kish  be  the  father  of  Shimei,  since  the  same 
name  was  borne  by  the  lather  of  Saul.  But  there  were  four  bearers  of 
the  name  Shimei  belonging  to  the  tribe  Reuben  (i  Chron.  5.  4),  Simeon 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I9 


of  this  genealogy  ?  From  Mordecai  to  Kish  would  be  at 
least  fourteen  generations,^  and  the  author  enumerates 
only  three  of  them.  But  it  is  not  impossible  that  the 
genealogy  is  not  quite  complete,  and  that  between  Mordecai 
and  his  exiled  ancestor  Kish  there  were  a  few  more 
generations.  We  shall  see  that  according  to  our  concep¬ 
tion  the  events  of  our  story  occurred  about  two  hundred 
years  after  Jeconiah’s  exile,  and  we  may  reasonably  doubt 
whether  only  three  generations  could  have  intervened 
between  this  period  and  that  of  Esther.  For  such  a 
possibility  we  may  point  to  Ezra’s  genealogy,  in  which  his 
immediate  ancestors  are  ornitted.^  A  similar  omission  may 
be  inferred  in  Mordecai’s  genealogy.  We  may  suggest  that 
they  were  men  of  a  type  whose  names  the  biblical  authors 
deemed  unworthy  to  perpetuate,  probably  idolaters.^® 

(ibid.  4.  26,  27),  Levi  (ibid.  6.  14  and  28),  besides  two  others  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin  (ibid.  8.  21  ;  i  Kings  4.  18).  So  also  we  find  two  bearers  of  the 
name  of  Kish,  both  Levites  (i  Chron,  23.  21,  &c. ;  2  Chron.  29.  12).  The 
genealogy  of  Mordecai  given  in  the  Second  Targum,  on  which  the  contention 
of  the  modern  critics  is  evidently  based,  is  of  course  pure  fiction,  and  badly 
invented,  as  from  Mordecai  to  Kish  it  enumerates  eleven  generations,  but 
from  Kish  to  Benjamin  twenty-eight  generations. 

®  We  find  fourteen  generations  from  Kish  to  the  return  from  the 
Babylonian  Captivity  (i  Chron.  8.  33-8).  The  same  number  we  find  from 
Zadok  to  Joshua  (ibid.  5.  34-41). 

^  CL  Ezra  7.  i ;  i  Chron.  5.  40.  Bertheau-Ryssel,  in  his  commentary 
on  Ezra,  p.  88,  believes  that  the  author  merely  intended  to  show  us  that 
Ezra  was  a  lineal  descendant  of  high-priests,  and  therefore  omitted  his 
immediate  progenitors  who  were  not  high-priests.  But  this  explanation  is 
improbable.  The  line  of  the  high-priests  was  well  known,  since  Joshua 
and  his'  descendants  still  held  this  office.  What  we  want  to  learn  is 
Ezra’s  relationship  to  this  high-priestly  line,  and  this  point  is  altogether 
omitted. 

We  shall  show  (Chapter  V)  that  Mordecai’s  family  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  strictly  religious,  and  may  have  belonged  to  those  noble 
Jewish  families  which  continued  idolatrous  practices  in  Babylonia,  before 
its  conquest  by  the  Persians.  The  same  may  hold  true  of  numerous  priests, 

•  C  'Z 


k 


Esther 


20  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

(2)  The  author  further  states :  ‘  And  Mordecai  walked 
every  day  before  the  court  of  the  women’s  house,  to  know 
how  Esther  did,  and  what  should  become  of  her’.  This 
statement  is  denied  by  most  of  the  modern  commentators, 
who  regard  as  impossible  that  Mordecai  should  have 
been  permitted  free  access  to  the  harem  without  being 
a  eunuch. We  freely  admit  that  this  is  impossible,  but 
impossibilities  sometimes  happen.  One  could  never  believe 
that  prominent  scholars  and  grammarians  who  know 
Hebrew  pretty  well  should  raise  such  an  objection.  The 
author  does  not  say :  ‘  Mordecai  walked  m  the  court  of  the 
women’s  house’  (□’’Kon  JT2  nvns  ‘li’nntD  but  'before 

the  court  of  the  women’s  house  ’  nu  ‘nvn 

Mordecai  did  not  enter  the  court  of  the  harem,  which 
no  doubt  was  surrounded  by  a  high  wall,  but  walked  out¬ 
side  of  it,  to  inquire  of  the  eunuchs  about  his  adopted 
daughter.  Many  other  Persians  who  had  daughters  there 
most  likely  did  the  same.  Siegfried’s  sarcastic  remark, 

though  Ezekiel  seems  to  bear  testimony  that  the  ‘  sons  of  Zadok  ’  kept 
themselves  free  from  idolatry  (Ezek.  44.  15).  Some  of  them  may  have 
become  corrupted  after  Ezekiel's  death.  The  intermarriage  of  the  sons  of 
the  high-priest  Joshua  with  Gentiles  shows  that  even  the  priests  were  not 
above  reproach.  Now  there  is  a  talmudic  maxim  that  the  names  of 
irreligious  men  should  not  be  recorded,  based  upon  the  verse 

‘the  name  of  the  wicked  shall  rot’  (Prov.  10.  7).  This  verse  is 
interpreted  n!?!  ,  that  we  should  not  bring  up  their  names 

(Talmud  Babli,  Yoma  38  b).  Such  a  conception  is  not  purely  rabbinic,  but 
is  found  also  in  the  Bible  ;  cf.,  for  instance,  Exod.  17.  14  ;  Deut.  32.  27  ; 
Isa.  26.  14  ;  Ps.  112.  6,  &:c. 

Th.  Noldeke  {^Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  1401),  Wildeboer,  Siegfried,  in 
their  commentaries,  J.  D.  Prince  (^Jewish  Encyclopaedia^  under  ‘  Esther  ’), 
and  many  others.  Haupt  (Critical  Notes,*  p.  135)  suggests  that  Mordecai 
maj^  have  been  a  eunuch.  But  the  passage  ;  ‘  and  speaking  peace  to  all  his 
seed  clearly  indicates  that  Mordecai  had  children,  and  we  would  have 
to  assume  that  he  became  a  eunuch  after  he  had  raised  a  family. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  21 


‘  The  author  does  not  trouble  himself  about  the  difficulty, 
how  Mordecai  could  have  shown  himself  in  the  court  of 
the  harem  and  converse  with  Esther’,  is  characteristic  of 
his  commentaryd^  Besides,  Esther  at  the  time  of  this 
event  had  not  yet  been  in  the  real  harem  that  was  under 
the  supervision  of  Shaashgaz.  The  virgins  under  Hegai, 
not  yet  being  concubines,  may  have  enjoyed  the  liberty 
of  communicating  with  their  relativesd^ 

(3)  The  author  finally  states  :  ‘  After  these  things  did 
king  Ahasuerus  promote  Haman  the  son  of  Hammedatha 
the  Agagite,  and  advanced  him,  and  set  his  seat  above  all 
the  princes  that  were  with  him  The  commentators  are 
by  no  means  wrong  in  their  arguments  concerning  the 
representation  of  Haman  as  descendant  of  Agag,  in  calling 
attention  to  the  following  points :  (a)  The  statement  that 
Haman  was  a  descendant  of  Agag  is  in  itself  quite  im¬ 
probable.  (d)  It  is  incredible  that  the  Persians  should 
have  tolerated  the  rule  of  an  Agagite  prime  minister. 
(c)  The  representation  of  a  racial  contrast  between  the 
Benjamite  Mordecai  and  his  antagonist  the  Agagite 
Haman,  renewing  the  ancient  hereditary  enmity  between 
the  Benjamite  Saul  and  the  Amalekite  Agag,  is  too 
artificial  to  be  regarded  as  an  historical  fact.^"^  The  critics, 
however,  do  not  seem  to  perceive  that  their  arguments  are 

12  The  present  writer  is  gratified  to  find  that  .Haupt  had  already  called 
Siegfried  to  account  for  his  distortion  of  the  truth,  in  observing:  ‘The 
narrator,  it  may  be  supposed,  knew  rtiore  about  Oriental  manners  and 
customs  than  did  Siegfried.  The  author  did  not  overlook  the  difficulty, 
but  Siegfried  overlooked  ’  (Critical  Notes,  p.  i35\  However,  Siegfried 
merely  repeated  an  old  objection  found  by  many  earlier  commentators. 

13  Paton,  /.  c.,  p.  180,  is  also  of  the  same  opinion  that  the  concubines 
under  the  custody  of  Shaashgaz  were  probably  kept  under  stricter  sur¬ 
veillance. 

1^  Wildeboer,  Siegfried,  See.,  &c.,  and  so  also  Paton,  /.  c.,  p.  72. 


Esther 
2.  8,  14. 


Esther 

3-  1- 


22  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


not  directed  at  the  veracity  of  the  author,  but  at  a  talmudic 
interpretation.  They  would  never  have  thought  of  that 
contrast  if  Talmud,  Midrash,  and  Targumin  had  not  dwelt 
at  length  on  it.  It  is  well  known  that  it  is  a  pet  fancy  of 
the  rabbis  to  represent  all  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  even 
Rome,^^  as  descendants  of  Esau — who  had  been  wronged, 
but  never  committed  any  wrong  in  his  lifetime — and  it  is 
still  customary  to  designate  any  persecutor  of  the  Jews 
as  Esau.  Characteristic  in  this  respect  is  the  Second 
Targum,  which  contains  a  complete  genealogy  of  Haman, 
in  which  we  find  Greek  and  Latin  names  of  oppressors  of 
the  Jews,  and  among  them  occur  also  those  of  king  Herod 
and  his  father  Antipater.^®  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  the 
talmudic  interpretation  of  Agagi  is  merely  homiletic  and 
should  not  be  taken  seriously. 

However,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  let  us  admit  that 
the  gentilic  noun  Agagl  actually  means  ‘  descendant  of 
Agag  ’,  and  that  accordingly  the  narrative  indeed  implies 
a  contrast  between  two  hostile  races.  The  question  now 
arises  whether  the  narrative  would  have  been  less  com¬ 
prehensible  without  that  contrast.  Would  there  be  a 
missing  link  in  the  narrative,  if  the  gentilic  noun  Agagl 
were  entirely  omitted  ?  This  question  must  certainly  be 
answered  in  the  negative.  Nobody  would  presume  to  assert 
that  the  Greek  version  of  Esther  is  not  quite  intelligible 
because  it  knows  nothing  about  a  racial  contrast  between 
Haman  and  Mordecai.  This  version  further  clearly  furnishes 
proof  that  the  gentilic  noun  could  not  have  been  in  the 
original  Hebrew  text,  but  was  due  to  some  interpreter,  as 

See  Lewy’s  Handwdrterbuch  zum  Talmud  und  Midrasch,  under 
‘  Edom  and  cf.  Rashi  on  the  passage  DN[5i  (Gen.  25.  23). 

For  the  genealogy  of  Haman,  see  Cassel,  1.  c.,  p.  83  f. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  23 


already  suggested  in  Chapter  who  intended  to  represent 
that  racial  contrast,  after  the  story  had  been  rendered  into 
Greek.  The  Alexandrian  translator  was  undoubtedly  well 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  and  thus  knew  who  Agag 
was.  If  he  had  found  the  gentilic  noun  in  his  Hebrew 
text  he  certainly  would  have  rendered  it  ^Ayayalos,  not 
Bovyahs?-^  There  can  scarcely  be  any  doubt  concerning 
the  meaning  of  the  latter  term.  The  Persian  word  baga  — 

‘  God  ’  is  found  in  numerous  Persian  personal  names,  as 
for  instance,  Bagaeaiis,  Bagoas^  Bagopates,  Bagophanes, 
Bagosaces^  &c.’^  Therefore,  if  we  find  Bovyalos  as  gentilic 
name  of  a  Pej'sian^  in  a  narrative  the  scene  of  action  of 
which  is  Persia,  we  may  reasonably  see  in  it  the  Persian 
element  baga  and  assume  that  Bovyaio?  =  BayaTos.  The 
same  element  no  doubt  occurs  in  the  names  of  the  eunuchs, 
N‘nj2  and  in:n.  The  latter  is  rendered  in  the  Greek  version 
BovyaOdr  =  BayaBdv.  Paul  Haupt’s  explanation  of  the 
Greek  Bovyalos  as  a  Homeric  term,  ‘braggart’  is  far 
fetched. The  fact  that  the  Alexandrian  translator  was 
forced  to  substitute  fictitious  names  for  the  genuine  Persian 
names  in  the  Hebrew  text,  evidently  shows  that  he  did  not 
understand  the  Persian  language.  Nevertheless  the  gentilic 
noun  BovyaTos  is  genuine  Persian.  Therefore  we  may  safely 
assume  that  the  equivalent  of  this  term  in  the  Hebrew 
original  was  not  'Jaxn,  but  '23.1  ‘the  Bagoan A  similar 


Cf.  Chapter  I,  n.  8. 

^  Or  the  Alexandrian  translator  might  have  rendered  it  Tcoyaros,  as  did 
Lucian.  The  name  Hegai  usually  rendered  Tat  in  the  Greek  version,  is 
2.  15  rendered  rcoyafo?. 

See  Iranisches  Namenbuch  by  Ferdinand  Justi,  Marburg,  1895. 

20  Purim,  p.  12;  Critical  Notes,  p.  141.  Haupt  evidently  overlooked 
that  the  element  Hovya  is  also  found  in  the  eunuch’s  name  Bovyadav  (instead 
of  Ilarbonah,  8,  9). 


24  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

name  is  borne  by  one  of  the  Jewish  leaders  who  returned 
from  exile  with  Zerubabel,  '1:3,  which  the  Septuagint 
correctly  renders  Bayova'i}^ 

Moreover,  how  could  the  Hebrew  author  have  intended 
to  say  that  Haman  was  a  descendant  of  Agag  ?  He 
undoubtedly  was  familiar  with  the  Scriptures,  and  must 
have  known  that  Agag’s  whole  tribe  had  been  exterminated 
by  Saul ;  Agag  himself  was  slain  by  Samuely^  and  the 
other  tribes  of  Amalek  had  been  destroyed  in  the  time 
of  HezekiahS’"^  Is  it  conceivable  that  a  Jewish  author 
would  have  dared  to  contradict  the  Scriptures?  Now  it 
has  been  suggested  that  the  author’s  intention  in  desig¬ 
nating  Haman  as  an  Agagite  was  merely  to  characterize 
him  as  an  inveterate  persecutor  of  the  JewsS'^  But  also 
this  interpretation  is  improbable.  The  fact  that  Saul  and 
the  people,  notwithstanding  the  divine  command,  spared 
Agag  and  did  not  wish  to  slay  him,  indicates  that  Agag 
personally  was  by  no  means  a  ruthless  oppressor  of  Israel, 
but  suffered  mainly  for  the  many  wrongs  committed  by 
his  ancestors  and  his  tribes,  as  the  Bible  indeed  informs 
us.-^  Thus  there  is  no  reason  why  just  his  name  should 
have  been  selected  for  the  formation  of  an  appellativum^ 
given  to  Haman,  as  a  great  enemy  of  the  Jews.  If  that 
was  the  intention  of  the  author,  he  certainly  would  have 

21  Ezra  2.  2,  &c.  22  j  Sam.  15.  134. 

22  I  Chron.  4.  43.  24  5q  Cassel,  /.  c.,  p.  84. 

22  Graetz,  in  his  History  of  the  Jews^  vol.  I,  p.  91,  states  that  the 
Amalekite  king  Agag  appears  to  have  caused  great  trouble  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah  in  the  days  of  Saul.  Now  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Amalekites 
made  predatory  incursions  into  the  Jewish  territory  on  all  occasions. 
They  did  the  same  in  the  periods  of  Ehud  (Judges  3.  13)  and  of  Gideon 
{ibid.  6.  3).  The  Midianites  did  exactly  the  same.  The  other  neighbours 
of  Israel,  as  the  Philistines  and  Ammonites,  were  no  less  hostile  to  the 
Israelites  than  the  Amalekites. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  25 

called  Haman  We  may  therefore  contend  that 

there  is  no  truth  whatever  in  this  interpretation,  and  that 
in  the  two  words  and  we  merely  have  a  similarity 
of  sounds  which  is  frequently  deceptive.  How  fanciful 
identifications  of  this  kind  are,  we  can  illustrate  by 
identifying  'iiN  with  the  Babylonian  word  agagti^  ‘  to  be 
powerful’,  the  Arabic  ‘  burning or  even  with  Greek 
dyoctya,  ‘leader.’ 

It  has  further  been  suggested,  by  Paul  Haupt,“^  that 
the  original  reading  of  Haman’s  epithet  was  =  G^g^, 
in  the  sense  of  ‘  Northern  barbarian  which  was  afterwards 
changed  into  This  suggestion  is  based  upon  the 

Lucianic  recension,  which  renders  Haman’s  epithet  'iJN  into 
TcoyoLos.  But  Lucian’s  recension  was  made  towards  the  end 
of  the  third  century  C.E,,  and  is  either,  as  some  contend, 
an  independent  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  or  a  recension 
of  the  old  Greek  version,  in  which  the  Hebrew  text  was 
used  as  well.^®  Josephus  and  the  Talmud  undoubtedly 
read  and  therefore  it  is  exceedingly  improbable  that 
Lucian  should  have  found  in  his  Hebrew  original  the 
reading  'JNJ.  Furthermore,  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
a  gentilic  noun  Gdgl,  derived  from  313,  should  ever  have 
been  written  with  N.  Lucian  may  have  found  in  his 
Hebrew  text  the  reading  ’'33t<,  but  being  well  aware  of  the 
fact  that  Haman  could  not  have  been  a  descendant  of 
Agag,  considered  this  term  either  a  scribal  error  or  an 

2*5  Similarly  Cassel,  /.  c.,  p.  84. 

2'^  The  present  writer,  offering  these  etymologies  ad  absurdiini,  was 
surprised  to  see  them  seriously  suggested  by  H.  Winckler  {AHorientalische 
Forschungeti,  II,  p.  381).  ’ 

28  Purini^  p.  14  ;  Critical  Notes,  p.  14 1. 

23  See  Jacob,  /.  c.,  p.  260,  and  Paton,  1.  c.,  p.  38. 

80  Josephus  states  that  Haman  was  an  Amalekite  (see  Chapter  I,  n.  10). 


/ 


26  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


arbitrary  corruption  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  scribes  for 
the  purpose  of  representing  a  contrast  between  the  Ben- 
jamite  Mordecai  and  the  Agagite  Haman,  and  therefore 
believed  that  the  original  term  was  'Ji,  which  he  rendered 
Pcoyafo?.  He  even  may  have  seen  in  the  rendering 
BovyaTos  of  the  Alexandrian  version  a  corruption  from 
FcoyaLo?  or  Tovyalos-  But  even  according  to  Lucian’s 
reading  we  have  no  reason  for  the  assertion  that  the 
author’s  intention  was  to  represent  Haman  as  a  northern 
barbarian.  The  land  in  Ezekiel’s  prophecies, identical 
with  Gaga  in  the  Amarna  Letters, was  undoubtedly 
situated  in  Armenia.^^  We  know  that  this  country  became 
a  part  of  Persia  proper,  where  the  Zoroastrian  religion  and 
the  Persian  language  had  been  successfully  introduced, 

Ezek.  37.  2,  &c, 

22  See  H.  Wincklers  Tell- El- Amarna  Letters,  No.  5  (in  Eb.  Schrader’s 
Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  vol.  V). 

22  Gog  is  designated  by  Ezekiel  ;  ‘chief  prince  of  Meshech  and  Tubal’. 
These  nations  are  of  course  identical  with  the  Mushki  and  Tabal.  The}’ 
belonged  to  the  Hittites  (see  A.  Jeremias,  The  O.  T.  in  the  light  of  the 
Ancient  East,  vol.  I,  p.  280).  We  know  that  Tabal  dwelt  in  Lesser 
Armenia  (cf.  ibid.,  p.  281),  and  the  Mushki  are  everywhere  in  the  Cuneiform 
inscriptions  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Tabal  and  Urartu.  In  Xerxes’s 
army  against  Greece  we  find  both  nations,  Tabal  and  Mushki,  under  the 
names  of  Tibarenians  and  Moschians  under  one  commander  (Herodotus 
VII,  78).  These  nations  are  mentioned  in  Ezekiel  with  Togarmah,  identical 
with  Tilgarimu,  which,  according  to  Dillmann,  Kiepert,  and  Friedr.  Delitzsch, 
is  situated  in  South-Western  Armenia  (Del.,  Paradies,  p.  246).  The 
principal  state  of  these  nations  was  Magog,  which  comprises  Eastern  and 
Western  Armenia  {ibid.,  p.  247).  Now  the  Flittites,  to  which  evidently  all 
these  nations  belong,  were  by  no  means  barbarians,  if  we  may  judge  by 
their  monuments.  Thus  the  assertion  that  Gog  is  a  term  used  for  ‘  northern 
barbarian  ’  is  unfounded. 

24  Cf.  J.  Marquart’s  Fnndamente  Israelitischer  und  Jildischer  Geschichte, 
Gottingen,  1896,  p.  38,  and  Hastings’s  Encyclopaedia  under  ‘Armenia’ 
(Zoroastrianism).  * 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  27 


and  where  the  Persian  nobles  possessed  large  estates.^^ 
Therefore,  Haman  could  have  been  of  purely  Persian  origin 
and  nevertheless  be  designated  by  the  gentilic  noun  ':i, 
because  he  was  a  native  of  the  land  of  Gdg. 

However,  for  the  question,  whether  Haman  was  a 
foreigner  or  a  Persian,  we  must  consider,  beside  the  gentilic 

his  own  name  and  that  of  his  father.  We  know  what 
a  prominent  part  Haoma  {Horn)  plays  in  the  Zoroastrian 
religion.  It  was  the  name  of  the  guardian  angel  and  of 
the  holy  plant  used  for  sacrihces.^^  The  names  of  Haman 
and  his  father  Hamdatha,  ‘  given  by  Horn  ’,  are  undoubtedly 
connected  with  Haoma.  Cassel  is  even  inclined  to  suggest 
that  such  holy  names  could  only  have  been  borne  by  priests, 
and  that  Haman  and  his  father  were  Magians,^”^  who  were 
a  tribe  of  the  Medes.  But  Cassel  goes  perhaps  too  far  in 
this  assumption.  We  cannot  see  why  names  like  Bagadatha 
‘  given  by  God  ’,  and  MitJiradatJia^  ‘  given  by  Mithra  ’, 
should  be  less  holy  than  the  former,  and  yet  there  are 
bearers  of  such  names  who  did  not  belong  to  the  priest- 
caste  of  the  Magians.  Such  names  could  even  have  been 
borne  by  foreigners,  as  we  see  that  one  of  the  Jewish 
leaders  bore  the  name  which,  as  has  been  suggested 
is  a  hypocoristicon  of  Bagadatha  (=  ?).  Thus 

the  Persian  names  which  Haman  and  his  father  bore  are 
no  evidence  that  they  were  not  of  foreign  descent.  But 

See  Eduard  Meyer,  Geschichte^  III,  p.  138. 

Cf.  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson’s  Zoroaster^  New  York,  1899,  pp.  25,  50, 
and  Geldner’s  article  ‘Zoroaster’,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  nth  ed. 

Cassel,  /.  c.,  p.  82. 

A.  Wellhausen,  Israelitische  iind  Ji'tdisclie  Geschichte.  p.  120.  His 
suggestion  that  Bagadatha  is  a  translation  of  Jonathan  is  improbable. 
Ed.  Meyer  {Entstelnmg  des  Jndentiinis^  p.  157,  n.  2)  thinks  that  Bagadatha 
and  Ba,2:oi  are  distinct  Persian  names,  both  derived  from  haga. 


28  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


being  a  naturalized  Persian,  it  is  doubtful  whether  Haman’s 
foreign  descent  would  have  lowered  him  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Persians  and  debarred  him  from  occupying  a  high  position. 
Now  it  is  true  Hiwmia  or  Umma  is  the  name  of  an  ancient 
Elamitic  deity  which  occurs  in  numerous  Elamitic  proper 
names, and  we  might  see  the  same  divine  name  in  the 
names  Hainan  and  Hamdatha,  We  could  therefore  con¬ 
tend  that  Haman  was  by  origin  an  Elamite.  But  who 
knows  whether  the  divine  elements  Horn  and  Hnmma  are 
not  identical  ?  It  would  be  a  curious  coincidence  if  Horn, 
one  of  the  chief  deities  in  the  religion  of  the  Persians  whose 
capital  was  in  Elam,  should  not  have  some  connexion 
with  Hnnuna,  one  of  the  chief  Elamitic  deities.^^  How¬ 
ever,  for  the  question  under  consideration  it  is  quite 
irrelevant  whether  Haman  'was  of  Persian  or  Elamitic 

Herodotus  VI,  41,  states  that  the  children  of  Metiochus  son  of 
Miltiades  were  accounted  Persians,  because  their  father  had  married  a 
Persian  woman. 

Cf.  the  Elamitic  proper  names  Umnianigash,  Ummanaldasi,  Teum- 
man,  &c.  But  it  is  strange  that  we  do  not  find  the  name  of  this  deity 
among  the  names  of  the  twenty  gods  enumerated  by  Ashurbanipal  (cf. 
KB.j  II,  p.  205).  However,  the  element  amman  is  found  in  the  compounded 
divine  name  Am-ma-an-ka-si-bar.  « 

Haoma,  generally  considered  to  be  identical  with  Vedic  Soma  (cf. 
Geldner,  /.  c.)  :  the  Persians  did  not  take  over  this  deity  from  the  Elamites. 
We  may  only  question  whether  there  were  not  early  relations  between  the 
Elamitic  and  the  Vedic  religions.  The  racial  affinity  of  the  Elamites  is  still 
an  open,  question.  They  may  have  been  related  to  their  neighbours,  the 
Kassites.  Now  it  has  been  observed  that  some  of  the  Kassite  names  bear 
most  striking  resemblance  to  those  of  the  Hittites,  and  especially  to  those 
of  the  stock  of  Mitani  (cf.  Clay,  Personal  Names  of  the  Cassite  Period, 
pp.  44,  45).  It  has  been  further  demonstrated  that  there  were  Aryan 
elements  among  the  Hittite-Mitanni,  as  the  Aryan  deities  Mitra,  Vanina, 
Indra,  Nasatya  occur  in  the  Hittite  documents  found  by  H.  Winckler  in 
Boghaz-koi  {Mitt.  d.  Dentsch.  Orient.  Ges.,  Dec,,  1907,  p.  51).  Thus  there 
is  a  possibility  that  Humma  is  of  Aryan  origin  and  identical  with  the  Vedic 
Soma. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  29 


origin,  as  at  the  period  of  our  story  there  was  hardly  any 
difference  between  Persians  and  Elamitesd^ 

But  the  question  whether  the  Persians  would  have 
submitted  to  being  ruled  by  a  foreigner — a  question  which 
concerns  Mordecai’s  position  as  well  as  that  of  Haman — 
we  can  by  no  means  answer  in  the  negative,  if  it  is  true 
that  Bagoas,  the  most  powerful  prime  minister  under 
Artaxerxes  III  and  his  successors,  was  a  native  of  Egyptd^ 
Thus  the  premises  from  which  the  conclusions  under  dis¬ 
cussion  are  drawn  do  not  stand  the  test  of  impartial 
research,  and  the  objections  of  the  modern  critics  do  not 
invalidate  the  contention  that  the  Book  of  Esther  is 
historical. 

^2  If  Ahasuerus  is  to  be  identified  with  Xerxes,  we  may  doubt  whether 
the  Elamites,  who  had  rebelled  against  Darius  I,  and  set  up  a  king  of  their 
own  (Behistun  Inscription,  Col.  I,  '29),  were  in  the  short  period  of  about 
forty  years  completely  assimilated  to  the  Persians.  But  if  our  story 
happened  much  later,  we  may  reasonably  assume  that  at  that  time  there 
was  hardly  an}’  difference  between  Persians  and  Elamites. 

See  Justi,  Iranisches  Namenhitch,  under  ‘Bagoas’.  However,  the 
whole  argument  concerning  the  descent  and  the  name  of  Plaman  is  absurd, 
and  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  and  of  labour  to  deal  with  it  seriously,  if  it 
were  not  for  the  fact  that  all  modern  critics  attribute  to  it  so  much  impor¬ 
tance  and  base  upon  it  mythological  or  historical  theories.  Haman  might 
have  been  of  Amalekite  origin  and  be  nevertheless  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  a  real  Persian.  His  ancestors  might  have  lived  in  Persia  for  a 
long  period,  though  his  foreign  descent  was  still  known  to  the  Jews — 
a  fact  that  is  of  course  quite  improbable,  but  not  impossible. 


I 


30  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


\ 


CHAPTER  III 

The  author  of  Esther  as  an  historian — The  date  of  these  events — The 
extent  of  the  Persian  empire — The  coronation  festivities — Xerxes’  war  with 
Greece — His  queen  Amestris — The  Jews  outside  of  the  Persian  empire — 
The  diaspora — Jewish  persecutions  in  post-exilic  times — The  improbability 
of  Haman’s  decree — Xerxes’  character — His  attitude  towards  the  Jews — 
The  new  possessions  of  Ahasuerus. 

If  a  book  contains  anachronisms,  as  do  the  Books 
of  Daniel,  Tobit,  and  Judith,  we  may  doubt  its  historical 
character,  since  its  author  could  not  have  committed  errors 
of  this  kind  if  he  had  known  the  history  of  the  period  in 
which  the  events  are  said  to  have  occurred.  The  author 
of  the  Book  of  Esther,  however,  is  not  guilty  of  anachro¬ 
nisms,  and  was  well  informed  on  Persian  manners  and 
institutions.  Therefore,  we  have  no  reason  to  assume  that 
his  knowledge  of  Persian  history  was  inferior  to  that  of 
the  Greek  writers  of  his  period.  From  this  point  of 
view'  we  shall  investigate  the  events  of  our  story,  and 
demonstrate  that  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther  cannot  be 
identical  with  Xerxes. 

Esther  i.i.  (i)  The  story  opens  :  ‘Now  it  came  to  pass  ^  in  the  days 

1  The  Imperfect  with  waw  consecutivum  in  YT*'),  that  implies  a  preceding 
verb  in  the  Perfect,  and  is  always  used  in  continuation  of  a  historical 
narrative,  is  here  correct.  The  Book  of  Esther  continues  the  history  of 
Israel,  and  thus  forms  a  part  of  the  other  historical  Books.  The  author 
does  not  intend  to  write  the  story  of  Ahasuerus,  and  presupposes  that  the 
reader  is  acquainted  with  the  earlier  history  of  this  king,  as  Bertheau- 
Ryssel,  /.  c.,  p.  379,  strangely  explains.  Nor  is  the  use  of  the  Imperfect  with 
waw  consecutivum  an  imitation  of  the  older  histories,  designed  to  suggest 
that  Esther  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  literature,  as  Baton,  /.  c.,  p.  ico 


assumes. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  31 


of  Ahasuerus,  this  is  the  Ahasuerus  who  reigned  from  India 
even  unto  Ethiopia,  over  a  hundred  and  seven  and  twenty 
provinces  The  intention  of  the  author  evidently  was 
to  give  to  the  reader  exact  information  concerning  the 
king  under  whose  reign  the  events  narrated  occurred.^ 
He  assumes  that  several  Persian  kings  bearing  that  name 
are  known  to  his  readers — as  Ibn  Ezra  explains — and 
therefore  fixed  the  date  by  the  additional  remark,  that  the 
Ahasuerus  of  the  story  was  that  king  who  ruled  from 
India  to  Ethiopia,  and  no  other  king  bearing  the  same 
name,  for  the  dominion  of  the  other  did  not  extend  so  far. 
If  this  king  was  Xerxes,  there  was  no  need  to  fix  the  date. 

(2)  The  king  of  the  story  did  not  lose  any  of  his  hundred 
and  twenty-seven  provinces  during  the  whole  period  of  his 
reign.  But  Xerxes  did  lose  a  considerable  part  of  Asia 
Minor,  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  years  of  his  reign,  as  we 


2  The  identification  of  the  term  with  ^satrapy’  is  decidedly 

wrong.  The  titles  and  '12’  represent  three 

classes  of  officials.  The  first  were  rulers  of  satrapies,  as  is  well  known,  the 
second  were  governors  of  smaller  territories,  and  the  last  were  the 
governors  of  districts.  The  word  is  a  derivation  from  j’T  Ho 

judge’,  and  means  ‘  the  seat  of  a  judge,  judge’s  circuit’;  and  therefore  in 
Arabic  and  Syriac  the  terms  for  ‘city’  are  and  Judaea 

was  a  Medinah^  not  a  satrapy.  In  a  later  period,  Judea  and  Galilee  were 
considered  two  different  Accordingly,  there  is  no  discrepancy 

between  the  author  of  Esther  and  Herodotus,  who  states  that  Darius  I 
divided  the  Persian  empire  into  twenty  satrapies  (III,  3).  Cf.  Keil,  1.  c.^ 
p.  616,  and  Paton,  1.  c.,  p.  123. 

3  Wildeboer,  Driver,  and  others  deduce  from  this  passage  that  the  reign 
of  Ahasuerus  lay  in  a  past  somewhat  distant  at  the  period  of  the  author. 
But  we  ought  to  give  the  author  credit  for  more  sense.  The  latter  evidently 
intended  to  present  _this  story  as  an  ancient  document.  Hence  it  is 
improbable  that  he  should  have  expressed  himself  as  if  he  intended  to  show 
that  those  events  occurred  in  the  distant  past.  Therefore  it  is  obvious  that 
his  sole  intention  was  to  fix  the  date  of  Ih?*  ruler  under  whose  reign  the 
story  occurred. 


32  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 

I-  2,  3- 


know  that  most  of  the  Greek  territories  became  inde¬ 
pendent  after  the  battles  of  Salamis,  Plataea,  and  Mycale.^ 
This  fact  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  by  all  the  exegetes, 

(3)  The  story  continues :  ‘  In  those  days,  when  the  king 
Ahasuerus  was  sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  which 
was  in  Shushan  the  palace,  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign, 
he  made  a  feast  unto  all  his  princes  and  his  servants  ;  the 
power  of  Persia  and  Media,  the  nobles  and  princes  of  the 
provinces  being  before  him’.  In  these  passages  the  author 
seems  to  contradict  himself.  The  clause,  ‘  when  the  king 
Ahasuerus  was  sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  kingdom 
evidently  implies  that  this  feast  took  place  on  the  occasion 
of  the  king’s  accession  to  the  throne,  and  immediately  the 
author  states  that  it  occurred  ^  in  the  third  year  of  his 
reign’.  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  the  former  clause  can 
have  no  other  meaning  than  ‘  when  the  king  Ahasuerus 
was  firmly  established  on  the  throne  of  his  kingdom 
Both  the  Alexandrian  translator  and  Rashi  felt  this 
difficulty  ;  the  former  therefore  renders  this  clause  ore 
eOpouLcrOr]  Pao-iXev?  'A.  This  phrase  contains,  as  Jacob 
points  out,  the  special  Egyptian  term  for  the  coronation 
festivities  of  the  Ptolemies.^^  Rashi  explains  this  clause 

‘  when  the  kingdom  was  established, 
in  his  hand  Both  interpretations  may  mean  the  same. 
The  author  evidently  intends  to  inform  us  that  the  king 

^  See  Ed.  Meyer,  Geschichte^  III,  p.  416. 

^  Paton,  /.  c.,  p.  124,  observes:  ‘The  language  suggests  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  but  i.  3  says  that  it  was  in  the  third  year’.  H.  Winckler  (^Der 
Alte  Orient  und  die  Geschichtsforschung,  1906,  p.  21)  thinks  that  this  phrase 
means:  ‘when  he  ascended  the  throne’.  H.  Willrich,  /.  c.,  p.  15,  sees  in 
this  expression  an  official  coronation  that  may  have  been  celebrated  three 
years  after  the  accession  of  the  king.  But  cf.  Keil,  /.  c.,  p.  617,  and 
Bertheau-Ryssel,  /.  c.,  p.  384. 

®  See  Jacob,  1.  c.,  p.  281. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  33 


of  our  story  did  not  feel  himself  secure  in  the  possession 
of  his  throne  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign.  He  must  have 
had  a  rival  who  challenged  his  right  to  the  throne.  There¬ 
fore  no  festivities  took  place  on  his  accession.  But  in  the 
third  year  of  his  reign,  after  having  defeated  his  rival,  and 
being  now  generally  recognized  as  legitimate  ruler  and 
thus  firmly  established  on  his  throne,  the  king  celebrated 
the  event  in  the  manner  described.  This  was  actually 
a  coronation  feast.  If  this  interpretation  is  true,  the  king 
cannot  be  identified  with  Xerxes.  The  latter  being  the 
son  of  Darius  and  Atossa,  the  daughter  of  Cyrus  the 
Great,  his  right  to  the  throne,  after  his  accession,  was  not 
contested — though  during  his  father’s  lifetime  there  might 
have  arisen  a  doubt  whether  Xerxes,  who  was  born  in  the 

I 

purple,  or  his  elder  brother  should  succeed  to  the  throne.' 
There  is  no  record  that  Xerxes  had  to  assert  his  right 
to  the  succession  against  any  claimant.  None  of  his 
brothers  rebelled  against  him. 

(4)  The  events  narrated  in  the  second  chapter  of  Esther 
could  hardly  have  occurred  between  the  third  and  seventh 
years  of  Xerxes’  reign.  He  was  at  that  time  fully  occupied 
with  his  preparations  for  the  war  against  Greece.  The 
advice  of  the  courtiers  seems  to  have  been  carried  out  in 
the  sixth  year.  But  Xerxes  was  at  that  time  in  Greece. 
The  selection  of  Esther  took  place  in  the  seventh  year. 
But  the  testing  of  the  other  virgins,  before  Esther’s  turn 
came,  must  have  lasted  several  months.  We  would  have 
to  assume  that  Xerxes  at  that  time  was  already  back  from 
Sardis.  Such  an  assumption  is  not  impossible,  but  rather 
improbable. 

(5)  Esther  could  not  have  been  the  queen  of  Xerxes 

.See  Herodotus  VII,  2.  3. 


H. 


I) 


34  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


between  the  seventh  and  twelfth  years  of  his  reign,  as  the 
queen  at  that  time  was  Amestris,  and  she  cannot  be 
identified  with  Esther.^  We  cannot  accept  Jam  pel’s  forced 
suggestion  that  Esther  was  not  a  real  queen,  but  one  of 
Xerxes’  wives — not  a  concubine® — as  she  is  continually 
referred  to  as  queen  in  our  story.  Moreover,  according 
to  a  statement  of  Herodotus,  Darius  made  an  agreement 
with  the  six  conspirators  against  Pseudo-Smerdis,  stipulating 
that  the  king  was  to  marry  into  no  families  except  those 
of  the  conspirators.^®  If  this  statement  be  true,  it  is  very 
improbable  that  this  agreement  was  disregarded  by  the 
immediate  successor  of  Darius.  But  history  shows  that 
kings  hardly  ever  faithfully  observe  agreements  made  by 
distant  ancestors  with  their  subjects,  and  we  may  well 
imagine  that  this  agreement  was  violated  in  a  later  period. 
Furthermore,  if  we  may  believe  Herodotus,  the  Persian 
kings  had  a  very  convenient  ancient  law  that  decreed 
‘that  the  king  of  Persia  might  do  whatever  he  pleased 
which  enabled  them  to  set  aside  any  law  or  agreement  that 
interfered  with  their  own  pleasure. 

Esther 3. 6.  (6)  The  passage  ‘The  Jews  throughout  the  whole 

kingdom  of  Ahasuerus  ’,  and  similar  expressions,  apparently 
imply  that  at  the  period  of  our  story  there  were  Jews  out¬ 
side  of  the  Persian  empire.'  Herodotus  does  not  know 
anything  about  the  Jewsd^  This  fact  alone  is  sufficient 

®  Amestris  was  the  daughter  of  Otanes  (cf.  Herodotus  IX,  109  ;  Ctesias, 
Persica  20).  Cf.  Paton,  1.  c.,  p.  71  f. 

^  Jampel,  /.  c.,  p.  114.  Herodotus  III,  84.  Ibid.  Ill,  31. 

Ed.  Meyer  {Geschichte,  III,  p.  218)  is  evidently  wrong  in  identifying 
the  people  which  are  designated  by  Herodotus  II,  104  as  2i;pot  ot  kv  tt} 
HaXmaTLvri  with  the  Jews.  Herodotus  VII,  89  used  the  same  designation 
for  the  Syrians  who,  along  with  the  Phoenicians,  furnished  three  hundred 
vessels  for  the  war  against  Greece.  This  of  course  can  refer  only  to  those 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  35 


evidence  that  no  Jews  lived  at  that  time  among  the  Greeks. 

Egypt  was  under  the  dominion  of  Persia  during  the  reign 
of  Xerxes.  An  assumption  that  Jews  lived  among  the 
independent,  savage  Scythians  is  not  to  be  considered. 

The  only  independent,  civilized  country  where  Jews  might 
have  settled  was  Carthage,  and  so  far  we  have  no  record 
of  the  existence  of  Jews  among  the  Carthaginians.  Hence 
it  is  highly  improbable  that  Jews  existed  outside  of  the 
Persian  empire  at  the  time  of  Xerxes. 

(7)  The  passage  ‘There  is  a  certain  people  scattered  Esther 3. 8. 
and  dispersed  among  the  people  in  all  the  provinces  of  thy 
kingdom’  distinctly  shows  that  the  Jews  at  the  period 

of  our  story  had  already  settled  in  all  parts  of  the  Persian 
empire.  If  those  ^  events  occurred  under  the  reign  of 
Xerxes,  it  is  hardly  credible  that  such  a  dispersion  should 
have  been  accomplished  in  the  relatively  short  space  of 
about  sixty  years.  However,  this  objection  is  not  con¬ 
clusive.^^ 

(8)  The  main  proof,  however,  that  Ahasuerus  cannot  be 
identified  with  Xerxes,  may  be  seen  in  the  principal  event 
of  our  story.  If  we  are  to  believe  that  a  Persian  king  had 
once  decreed  the  destruction  of  the  Jews,  we  must  advance 
some  plausible  reason  for  such  an  action.  Considering  it 
from  the  point  of  view  of  all  commentators,  we  encounter 
a  monstrosity  inconceivable  to  the  human  mind.  Does  it 
stand  to  reason  that  Haman,  on  account  of  a  single 
individual,  who  had  refused  to  pay  him  due  homage,  should 
have  resolved  to  destroy  a  whole  innocent  race?  Now 

Syrians  who  inhabited  the  sea-coast,  and  the  Jews  in  the  Persian  period 
were  not  inhabitants  of  the  sea-coast. 

This  problem  is  treated  in  the  Appendix  ‘The  Exiles  of  Judah  and 
Israel h 

D  2 


36  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

it  is  true,  the’  bloody  pages  of  Jewish  history  bear  testimony 
to  terrible  persecutions  of  the  Jews,  in  all  ages,  down  to 
the  present,  through  no  fault  of  their  own.  But  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  this  hostile  attitude  was  always  caused 
by  religious  fanaticism  and  intolerance.  In  post-exilic 
times,  the  hatred  against  the  Jews  was  never  directed 
against  the  Jewish  race,  but  against  the  Jewish  religion. 
The  Jew  who  became  a  pagan,  or  embraced  Christianity 
or  Islam,  was  in  all  countries  and  in  all  ages  just  as  safe 
as  one  of  the  other  races.  It  was  always  the  aim  of 
intolerant  rulers  to  compel  the  Jews  to  abandon  their 
exclusive  position,  and  this  task  could  not  be  accomplished 
except  by  means  of  persecution.  We  know  that  the  Jews 
who  abandoned  their  religion  could  attain  to  the  highest 
dignity  in  the  Christian  hierarchy,  even  in  the  Dark  Ages. 
But  Haman’s  action  is  without  a  parallel  in  history.  If  he 
had  been  a  religious  fanatic_,  he  would  have  compelled  the 
Jews  to  abandon  their  religion,  as  did  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

However,  let  us  admit  that  Haman  was  of  an  excep¬ 
tional  turn  of  mind,  and  desired  to  exterminate  the  whole 
Jewish  race  on  account  of  Mordecai.  But  how  can  we 
believe  that  Xerxes  was  exactly  of  the  same  turn  of  mind 
and  readily  agreed  to  carry  out  his  intentions?  Jampel’s 
suggestion  that  Xerxes  was  afraid  of  the  Scythians,  who 
frequently  laid  waste  the  country,  and  therefore  believed 
that  Haman’s  accusation  referred  to  them,^^  is  impossible. 
Who  ever  heard  of  enemies  of  this  kind  being  destroyed 
by  royal  decrees?  Xerxes  might  just  as  well  have  decreed 
the  destruction  of  Greece  !  If  the  Scythian  hordes  had 
been  so  weak  as  to  be  destroyed  by  the  people,  they  could 


Jampel,  /.  c.,  p.  114. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  37 


not  have  inspired  any  fear.  There  was  no  need  to  ask 
special  permission  and  offer  a  large  amount  of  money 
for  the  destruction  of  enemies  of  this  kind.  If  he  had 
been  afraid  of  these  hordes,  Xerxes  would  gladly  have 
given  anything  to  rid  himself  of  them.  Moreover,  the 
words  of  Haman,  ‘scattered  and  dispersed  in  all  the 
provinces  of  thy  kingdom  distinctly  indicate  that  he  could 
not  have  referred  to  the  Scythians,  who  were  by  no  means 
scattered  and  dispersed  in  all  the  provinces,  but  came  in 
large  bodies  from  their  steppes  whenever  they  committed 
their  depredations.  It  is  also  preposterous  to  assume  that 
Xerxes  could  have  decreed  the  extermination  of  a  people 
without  knowing  their  name.  The  testimony  of  classical 
authors,  quoted  by  Jampel,  that  Xerxes  was  of  very 
inferior  intelligence,  ‘  being  a  body  without  a  soul  ’,  does 
not  deserve  any  credence.  The  only  authority  for  the 
personality  of  Xerxes  is  the  honest,  unbiased  Herodotus — 
who,  though  he  may  in  some  cases  have  been  misinformed, 
never  distorted  the  truth.  The  profound  remarks  which 
Herodotus  ascribes  to  Xerxes,  no  matter  whether  they  are 
oratorical  embellishments  or  not,  indicate  that  he  considered 
this  king  a  man  of  intelligence.  It  is  wrong  to  see  in  the 
scourging  of  the  Hellespont  a  childish  action,  as  is  generally 
done  by  the  commentators.  Herodotus  and  the  Greeks 
did  not  look  upon  it  as  childish,  but  as  impious.  It  was 
a  symbolic  action,  a  chastisement  of  the  Greek  god 
Poseidon,  whom  Xerxes  may  have  held  to  be  a  creature 
of  Ahriman,  according  to  his  religious  conception.  This 
action  was  in  some  respect  similar  to  the  striking  of  the 
Red  Sea  and  of  the  Rock  by  Moses.  According  to 
Herodotus,  Cyrus  punished  the  river  Gyndes  by  dividing 
it  into  three  hundred  and  sixty  parts  for  a  lesser  cause,  his 


38  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

favourite  horse  having  been  drowned  in  itd^  Xerxes  was 
not  inferior  in  intelligence  to  any  of  his  successors.  Curtius 
justly  describes  him  as  having  had  a  deep  sense  of  the 
dignity  of  the  empire.^*^  The  Persians  in  later  times  may 
have  depicted  him  as  an  incapable  ruler,  attributing  to  his 
incapacity*  the  disgraceful  defeats  Persia  suffered  under 
his  reign.  But  exegetes  have  no  right  to  stamp  Xerxes 
a  fool  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  the  veracity  of  the 
Book  of  Esther. 

It  has  further  been  suggested  by  JampeP’^  that  Xerxes’ 
detestation  of  the  Jews  may  have  been  caused  by  his 
religious  fanaticism.  Now  there  is  no  doubt  that  Xerxes 
was  a  fanatical  adherent  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion, 
apparently  more  so  than  his  father  Darius.  The  former 
even  removed  the  statue  of  Bel-Marduk  from  the  Babylonian 
temple,  an  action  which  his  father  ‘  had  not  the  hardihood 
to  do  as  Herodotus  informs  us.^®  It  has  been  pointed  out 
that  Xerxes  after  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign  is  no  longer 
styled  ‘  king  of  Babylon  ’  in  the  Babylonian  documents  ;  for 
this  title  could  only  be  borne  by  a  king  who  seized  the 
hand  of  Bel-Marduk  on  the  New  Year  festivald^  Though 
the  action  of  Xerxes  may  have  been  a  political  measure 
and  done  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  the  kingdom  of 
Babylonia  and  uniting  it  with  the  Persian  empire,  and 
not  with  any  religious  motives,  nevertheless  Xerxes  could 

Herodotus  I,  189.  Grote,  in  his  History  of  Greece,  IV,  p.  284,  does 
not  doubt  this  narrative,  though  it  has  been  said  that  Cyrus’s  real  intention 
was  to  put  this  river  out  of  his  way  in  case  he  should  find  it  necessary  to 
cross  it. 

In  his  History  of  Greece,  II,  p.  273. 

/.  c.,  p.  1 19.  Herodotus  I,  183. 

Cf.  Ed.  Meyer,  Forschungen  zur  Alien  Geschichte,  Halle,  1892,  I, 
p.  474,  and  Geschichte,  III,  p.  130. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  39 


hardly  have  committed  such  a  sacrilegious  deed,  if  he  had 
not  been,  as  a  true  Zoroastrian,  an  inveterate  enemy  of  the 
worship  of  idols.  It  has  even  been  asserted  that  he 
destroyed  Greek  temples  for  the  same  reason/^®  This, 
however,  is  rather  doubtful,  as  Herodotus  states  that  on 
the  day  after  the  temple  of  Minerva  was  set  on  fire,  Xerxes 
assembled  all  the  Athenian  exiles  and  bade  them  go  into 
the  temple  and  offer  sacrifices  after  their  own  fashion.^^ 
Xerxes  would  in  all  probability  have  destroyed  the  temples 
of  his  enemies,  even  if  he  had  been  an  idolater.  But  the 
very  fact  that  Xerxes  was  an  ardent  Zoroastrian  is  proof 
to  the  contrary,  that  he  could  not  have  been  hostile  to  the 
Jews  on  account  of  their  religion.  We  shall  see  that  the 
latter  were  by  no  means  averse  to  the  Persian  religion,  as 
long  as  it  remained  in  its  purity,  free  from  idolatrous  repre¬ 
sentations.  Both  the  Jewish  and  Zoroastrian  religion  were  in. 
the  main  points,  superficially  at.  least,  alike,  acknowledging* 
only  one  God  and  having  no  idols.^^  If  Xerxes  was  an 
ardent  Zoroastrian,  he  must  have  been  favourably  inclined 
towards  the  only  non-Iranian  subjects  in  his  empire,  who 
had  a  religion  akin  to  that  of  the  Persians,  and  readily 
acknowledged  the  divinity  of  Ahuramazda.  As  significant 
for  his  favourable  attitude  towards  the  Jews  we  consider 

20  Cf.  G.  Rawlinson’s  Herodotus^  vol.  Ill,  p.  254  ;  IV,  p.  241,  and  Cassel, 
/.  c.,  p.  82. 

Herodotus  VIII,  54.  The  fact  that  Xerxes  destroyed  Greek  temples 
is  no  proof  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  worship  of  idols.  Herodotus  VIII,  35 
states  that  he  intended  to  invade  Delphos  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  the 
riches  which  were  laid  up  there.  It  was  a  political  measure  lest  the  Greeks 
might  use  these  treasures  against  him.  For  the  same  purpose  he  may  have 
plundered  the  very  rich  temple  of  Apollo  at  Aboe,  according  to  Herodotus 
VIII,  33.  Ed.  Meyer  {Geschichte,  III,  p.  255)  contends  that  Xerxes  was  not 
hostile  towards  the  Greek  gods. 

22  See  Chapter  V. 


\ 

40  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 

TO.  I. 


the  statement  of  Ezra,  ‘  And  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  they  wrote  an  accusation 
against  the  inhabitants  of  Judea  and  Jerusalem.’ It  is 
noteworthy  that  nothing  is  said  about  the  result  of  this 
accusation.^^  It  is  evidently  due  to  Xerxes’  benevolent 
attitude  towards  the  Jews  that  this  accusation  remained 
without  result.  Seeing  that  we  cannot  assign  sufficient 
reasons  for  the  danger  of  extermination  impending  over 
the  Jews  under  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
latter  cannot  be  identified  with  the  king  of  our  story. 

(9)  There  is  a  remarkable  statement  in  the  last  chapter 
of  our  story  :  ‘  And  the  king  Ahasuerus  laid  a  tribute  upon 
the  land,  and  upon  the  isles  of  the  sea  This  passage 
has  puzzled  all  commentators;  What  connexion  may  this 
trivial  remark  have  with  the  preceding  events?  Cassel’s 
ingenious  explanation,  that  the  king  indemnified  himself 
for  the  ten  thousand  talents  he  had  lost  in  frustrating 
Haman’s  decree,^®  is  impossible.  The  money  that  Haman 
’promised  was  not  a  profit,  but  indemnification  for  the  loss 
of  Jewish  taxes.  Further,  the  king  had  renounced  all 


23  Ezra  4.  6.  Ahasuerus  in  this  passage  is  undoubtedly  Xerxes,  not 
Cambyses.  Cf.  Keil,  p.  442,  and  Bertheau-Ryssel,  p.  64. 

2^  Marquart,  /.  c.,  p.  63,  sees  in  this  passage  the  gloss  of  an  interpolator. 
But  if  the  intention  of  the  alleged  interpolator  was  to  give  us  some 
information  about  troubles  of  the  Judeans  under  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  why 
does  he  stop  with  the  accusation  ?  This  ‘  interpolator  ’  was  apparently 
a  better  historian  than  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  since  he  placed 
Ahasuerus  between  Darius  I  and  Artaxerxes  1.  Siegfried,  in  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  Ezra,  p.  24,  observes  :  ‘  The  petition  to  Ahasuerus  is  missing. . . . 
But  this  gap  is  filled  out  by  Ezra  2.  17-25’.  But  Ezra  omits  this  passage 
altogether,  and  the  verses  17-25  correspond,  with  the  exception  of  the 
proper  names,  to  the  Hebrew  text. 

23  See  Keil,  p.  658;  Bertheau-Ryssel,  p.  545;  Wildeboer,  p.  196; 
Siegfried,  p.  175;  Baton,  p.  303,  &c. 

23  Cassel,  /.  r.,  p.  236. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  4! 


claim  to  this  money,  in  saying :  ‘  The  silver  is  given  to 
thee  Finally,  the  king  had  already  indemnified  himself 
by  confiscating  Haman’s  property. The  author  evidently 
intended  to  inform  the  reader  about  the  great  statesmanship 
of  Mordecai,  that  the  king  by  following  his  counsel  was 
very  fortunate  in  his  enterprises,  and  increased  his  dominions 
by  acquiring  a  new  land  and  isles  on  which  he  levied 
tribute.^®  But  we  know  that  Xerxes  did  not  increase  his 
empire  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  lost  the  Greek  cities  and 
islands  of  Asia  Minor,  the  whole  of  Thrace,  and  the  greater 
part  of  Cyprus  between  the  years  479-476  B  C.E.,  and 
never  recovered  them.  Hence  such  a  statement  cannot 
refer  to  the  reign  of  Xerxes. 

2^  Though  Ahasuerus  made  a  present  of  it  to  Esther,  the  property  of  his 
wife  was  always  at  his  disposal. 

28  Ibn  Ezra,  ad  locum,  is  the  only  commentator  who  recognized  the 
meaning  of  this  passage. 


42  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  IV 

Ahasuerus’  identity  with  Artaxerxes  II,  Mnemon — Plutarch’s  Life  of 
Artaxerxes — Plutarch’s  sources  and  their  reliability — Artaxerxes’  character — 
His  relations  to  the  Greeks — The  Peace  of  Antalcidas— The  rebellion  of 
Cyrus  the  Younger — The  date  of  the  battle  of  Cunaxa — Artaxerxes’  cele¬ 
bration  of  his  victory — His  domestic  life — Quarrels  between  his  queen  and 
his  mother — The  rule  of  the  harem — The  queen’s  disobedience — Her 
degradation  and  murder — Her  name — Artaxerxes’  concubines —Artaxerxes’ 
suspicions  against  his  grandees — His  palace  at  Susa — The  name  Ahasuerus 
in  the  Hebrew  version — A  comparison  between  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes  II — 
The  resurrection  of  the  Persian  empire — The  Arsacides  alleged  descendants 
of  Artaxerxes  II— -His  proper  name — The  uniformity  of  the  Scriptures — 
The  name  Artaxerxes  in  the  Greek  version. 

The  veracity  of  a  story  has  to  be  judged  by  the  facts 
narrated  therein,  and  these  facts  on  their  own  merits, 
independently  of  the  names  of  the  dramatis  personae^  which 
may  have  been  changed  for  some  reason.  The  modern 
exegetes  of  the  Book  of  Esther  evidently  do  not  grant 
these  premisses.  Having  identified  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes, 
an  identification  that  etymologically  cannot  be  doubted, 
'^"and  finding  that  historically  the  events  of  this  Book  could 
^not  have  occurred  under  the  reign  of  the  latter,  they 
(^conclude  that  the  story  is  fictitious.  This  conclusion  is 
erroneous.  We  readily  concede  that  an  assumption  that 
these  events  actually  happened  under  Xerxes’  reign  is 
beyond  the  limits  of  consideration,  as  we  have  shown  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  But  this  fact  does  not  prove  that 
these  events  are  unhistorical.  They  might  have  occurred 
under  a  ruler  whose  name  was  not  Ahasuerus.  We  indeed 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  43 


contend  that  the  events  of  our  story,  being  corroborated  by 
external,  non-biblical  historical  sources,  cannot  be  denied, 
and  that  the  name  of  the  king  found  in  the  present  Hebrew 
version  of  the  Book  of  Esther  is  fictitious.  In  the  course 
of  our  investigation,  we  hope  to  prove  the  truth  of  our 
contention. 

Historical  events  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II 
Mnemon  (404/3-359/8  B.C.E.)  leave  no  room  for  doubt 
that  the  events  narrated  in  our  story  occurred  under  that 
king’s  reign.  The  latter  having  played  a  part  in  the 
history  of  Greece,  such  as  no  other  Persiari„Eing  before 
or  after  him,  we  have  abundant  information  about  his 
political  affairs,  which  can  be  traced  in  our  story.  But 
records  about  his  domestic  life,  written  by  various  Greek 
authors,  are  scanty  and  not  of  a  character  to  be  implicitly 
relied  upon,  being  apparently  a  mixture  of  truth  and 
fiction.  The  writings  of  the  older  classical  historians  who 
dealt  with  this  subject,  like  Ctesias  of  Cnidus,  Deinon  of 
Colophon,  Heraclides  of  Cyme,  and  others  are  lost,  with 
the  exception  of  some  fragments  of  Ctesias.^  All  later 
historians  who  touched  upon  this  subject  drew  from  these 
sources.  Plutarch,  in  his  Life  of  Artaxerxes,  relied  for  the 
description  of  the  first  part  of  this  king’s  reign  chiefly  upon 
Ctesias,  for  that  of  the  later  years  chiefly  upon  Deinon,  but 
drew  also  from  Heraclides  and  other  sources.  Ctesias 
could  testify  as  an  eye-witness  to  the  events  that  happened 
in  the  first  six  years  of  Artaxerxes’  reign,  since  he  was 
physician  at  the  Persian  court  for  about  seventeen  years 
(414-398).  He  wrote  his  history  about  390.  His  testi¬ 
mony  ought  seemingly  to  be  regarded  of  prominent  value. 

1  For  the  historical  sources  for  this  period  see  Ed.  Meyer.  Gesch. 
Ill,  pp.  7  If 


44  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


But  Plutarch  does  not  place  much  confidence  in  him, 
charging  that  he  had  filled  his  books  with  a  number  of 
extravagant  and  incredible  fables.  Ctesias  had  indeed 
in  antiquity  the  not  undeserved  reputation  of  a  liar  and 
forger.  Deinon  wrote  his  history  towards  the  end  of  the 
Achaemenian  period,  and  is  generally  regarded  as  trust¬ 
worthy.  For  our  present  investigation,  we  must  chiefly 
rely  upon  Plutarch.  But  judging  by  his  Artaxei'xes^  we 
must  doubt  Deinon’s  reliability.  We  shall  demonstrate  by 
a  few  striking  examples  that  this  historian  does  not  deserve 
great  confidence.  It  is  surprising  to  see  our  modern 
historians,  like  Ferdinand  Justi,^  and  even  Eduard  Meyer, 
the  greatest  authority  on  ancient  history  in  our  times, 
implicitly  accepting  in  their  Histories  many  statements  of 
Plutarch,  without  subjecting  them  to  a  critical  analysis. 
We  call  attention  to  the  following  points  : 

(i)  According  to  Plutarch,  Artaxerxes  II  reached  the 
age  of  ninety-four  years.^  Both  Justi^  and  Eduard  Meyer 
accept  this  statement.  If  this  be  true,  Artaxerxes  must 
have  been  forty- eight  at  the  time  of  his  accession  to  the 
throne,  since  he  reigned  from  404/3  to  359/8.  But  the 
latter  was  the  son  of  Darius  II  and  Parysatis.  They  had, 
according  to  Plutarch,^  four  children,  of  whom  Artaxerxes 
was  the  eldest,  Cyrus  the  second,  and  Ostanes  and  Oxatres 
the  two  youngest.  Darius  reigned  424-404.  As  Cyrus 
claimed  the  throne  on  account  of  having  been  born  in  the 
purple,  he  must  have  been  about  nineteen  years  old  at  the 

2  Geschichie  des  Alien  Persiens^  Berlin,  1879  (in  Oncken’s  ‘Allgemeine 
Geschichte’,  part  IV). 

^  Plutarch's  Artaxerxes^  XXX,  9. 

^  In  his  Geschichte,  p.  136. 

5  In  his  Forschimgen,  p.  489.  In  his  Geschichte  he  sa^’s  that  Artaxerxes 
was  uralt.  Artaxerxes,  I,  2. 

c  /  / 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  45 


demise  of  his  father.  Accordingly  Artaxerxes  would  have 

been  twenty-nine  years  older  than  his  second  brother. 

Parysatis,  remarkable  for  her  cruelty,  would  have  been 

more  remarkable  as  a  natural  phenomenon,  having  borne 

three  lusty  sons  after  an  intermission  of  twenty-nine 

years.’'  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Artaxerxes  was  merely  a  few 

years  older  than  his  second  brother.  He  must  have  been 

at  the  prime  of  his  life  at  the  time  of  his  campaign  against 

the  Cadusians,  about  twenty-four  years  after  his  accession, 

if  he  could  bear  all  the  hardships  of  the  march  like  the 

meanest  soldier  and  show  strength  and  alacrity  by  marching 

two  hundred  furlongs  daily,  as  Plutarch  informs  us.^  How- 
) 

ever,  Plutarch  is  in  this  case  not  as  much  to  blame  as  the 
modern  historians ;  for  the  former  gives  Artaxerxes  a 
reign  of  sixty-two  years,^  and  thus  Cyrus  would  have  been 
only  about  thirteen  years  younger  than  his  eldest  brother. 
If  historians  rightly  reject  the  statement  concerning  the 
years  of  his  reign  as  unhistorical,  they  ought  to  have 
repudiated  also  that  as  to  Artaxerxes’  age ! 

(2)  Plutarch’s  date  of  Artaxerxes’  reign,  mentioned 
above,  is  not  a  scribal  error,  as  the  same  date  is  given  by 
Sulpicius  Severus,  and  both  drew  from  the  same  source, 
from  Deinon,  according  to  Ed.  MeyeiA^  The  latter 

There  is  also  another  chronological  improbability.  Artaxerxes  I,  who 
was  the  younger  son  of  Xerxes,  was  undoubtedly  born  in  the  purple.  As 
the  latter  ascended  the  throne  484,  and  was  murdered  465,  Artaxerxes  could 
hardly  have  been  more  than  eighteen  at  the  time  of  his  accession.  Now  if 
Artaxerxes  II  was  forty-eight  years  old  when  he  became  king,  he  must  have 
been  born  452.  Then  Artaxerxes  I  would  have  become  a  grandfather  at 
the  age  of  thirty.  G.  Rawlinson  {Herod.  IV,  p.  2)  considers  it  incredible 
that  Xerxes  should  have  had  a  grown-up  son  when  he  was  at  most  thirty-six 
years  old. 

*  Artaxerxes.,  XXIV,  ii.  Ihid.  XXX,  9. 

Forschiingen,  p.  489. 


46  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

admits  that  he  is  unable  to  explain  how  such  an  error 
could  have  occurred.  He  evidently  overlooked  the  fact 
that  this  date,  giving  Artaxerxes  the  age  of  ninety-four 
years  at  his  death,  is  the  basis  of  all  the  stories  about 
Cyrus  and  Parysatis,  told  by  Plutarch.  It  is  also  possible 
to  explain  the  occurrence  of  this  error.  Eusebius  gives 
Artaxerxes  II  a  reign  of  forty  years,  while  Africanus  gives 
Artaxerxes  III  a  reign  of  twenty- two  years.  Hence  it  is 
very  possible  that  the  date  given  by  Plutarch  and  Severus 
include  the  regnal  years  of  both  these  kings.  This  date 
sufficiently  shows  how  badly  Deinon  must  have  been 
informed  about  the  Persian  history  of  this  period. 

(3)  Plutarch  tells  us  that  Cyrus  had  a  concubine  named 
Aspasia,  who  had  been  taken  prisoner  in  the  battle  of 
Cunaxa,  and  afterwards  became  the  concubine  of  Artaxerxes. 
But  his  oldest  son  Darius,  after  having  been  appointed 
successor,  requested  his  father  to  give  Aspasia  to  him. 
Artaxerxes  complied  with  his  request,  but  soon  afterwards 
he  took  her  away  and  made  her  priestess  of  Diana  of 
Ecbatana,  whom  they  called  Anaitis,  that  she  might  pass 
the  remainder  of  her  life  in  chastity.^^  Darius,  incensed 
and  persuaded  by  Teribazus,  conspired  against  the  life  of 
his  father  and  intended  to  assassinate  him  in  his  bed¬ 
chamber.^^  When  these  events  occurred,  Artaxerxes  was 

Artaxerxes,  XXVII,  4. 

Ibid.  XXIX.  Plutarch  may  congratulate  himself  that  he  was  not 
a  Jewish  author.  The  commentators  on  Esther  concern  themselves  with 
the  difficult  question  how  Esther,  who  as  cousin  of  Mordecai  must  have 
been  at  least  fifty  or  sixty  years  of  age,  should  have  been  so  beautiful  as  to 
captivate  the  heart  of  Xerxes.  Plutarch’s  tale  is  more  incredible,  and 
nevertheless  Justi,  Gesch,,  p.  137,  accepts  it  literally,  without  expressing 
any  doubt  as  to  its  historicity.  Some  commentators  believe  that  in  the 
seclusion  and  care  of  an  Oriental  harem  beauty  lasts  to  an  extreme  age 
(see  Bertheau-Ryssel,  p.  400,  and  Paton,  p.  170).  However,  just  the 


THE  KOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  47 

already  far  advanced  in  years,  as  Plutarch  asserts.  The 
fact  that  a  successor  to  the  throne  was  appointed  shows 
that  they  happened  in  the  last  years  of  his  reign.  At  that 
time  Aspasia  was  already  an  old  woman,  at  the  age  of 
seventy  at  least,  according  to  Plutarch’s  chronology. 
Accordingly,  ‘  the  goddess  of  beauty’  could  not  have  ‘  con¬ 
tributed  her  share  towards  persuading  Darius  by  putting 
him  in  mind  of  the  loss  of  Aspasia  ’. 

(4)  Plutarch  further  tells  us  that  Parysatis  was  instru¬ 
mental  in  bringing  about  the  marriage  of  Artaxerxes  to 
his  own  daughter  Atossa,  by  telling  him  to  make  her  his 
wife,  without  regarding  the  laws  and  opinions  of  the 
Greeks.^^  This  daughter  was  apparently  rather  young  at 
the  time  of  her  marriage  to  her  own  father,  since  her 
brother  Ochus,  the  youngest  son  of  Artaxerxes,  is  said  to 
have  promised  her  to  make  her  his  queen,  in  case  she 
would  assist  him  in  putting  his  elder  brothers  out  of  the 
way.^^  This  occurred  at  the  time  of  Darius’s  conspiracy. 
But  according  to  Plutarch,  Parysatis  must  have  been  fifty 
years  of  age  at  least,  when  Artaxerxes  ascended  the 
throne,  and  could  hardly  have  been  alive  towards  the  end 
of  his  reign. 

Historians  attach  too  much  importance  to  Persian 
harem-stories  recorded  by  Greek  authors.  We  ought  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  Persian  harem  was  more  closely 
guarded  than  the  Golden  Fleece.  No  outsider  could  know 

contrary  is  true.  Justi,  /.  r.,  p.  125,  observes  :  ‘  The  charms  of  the  women 
last  seldom  more  than  eight  or  nine  years.  The  splendid  beauty  soon  turns 
withered,  lean,  blear-eyed,  and  becomes  in  every  respect  an  ugly  woman. 
Each  year  brings  a  new  wrinkle,  until  the  former  light  of  the  harem  is 
quite  obscured  ’.  From  this  point  of  view,  we  understand  why  there  were 
new  gatherings  of  virgins  from  time  to  time. 

Artaxerxes,  XXIII,  5. 


Ibid.  XXVI,  3. 


48  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

exactly  the  real  happenings  there. The  stories  are  based 
upon  rumours  which  may  have  been  embellished  and  dis¬ 
torted,  not  upon  first-hand  information.  It  should  also 
be  taken  into  account  that  the  Greek  writers  in  telling 
startling  stories  about  the  barbarians,  were  playing  to  the 
gallery.  The  Greek  physicians  at  the  Persian  court  were 
most  likely  better  informed  about  happenings  in  the  harem. 
But  with  the  exception  of  Ctesias,  who  is  fond  of  giving 
fiction  instead  of  truth,  especially  where  his  own  ambition 
was  concerned,  these  physicians  did  not  write  histories. 

There  is  no  doubt  some  truth  in  many  stories  of 
Plutarch’s  Artaxerxes,  but  it  is  mixed  with  fiction.  There 
may  have  been  a  conspiracy  against  the  life  of  Artaxerxes 
in  the  first  years  of  his  reign,  in  which  Aspasia  played 
some  part.  Who  knows  whether  she  was  not  involved  in 
some  conspiracy  to  avenge  the  death  of  her  lover  Cyrus, 
which  the  Greek  author  mixed  up  with  the  conspiracy  of 
Darius  that  occurred  about  forty  years  later  ?  Ed.  Meyer, 
who  in  his  History  gave  full  credence  to  Plutarch’s  account, 
seems  to  have  lost  faith  in  it,  as  his  description  of  the 
events  under  discussion,  in  the  Encyclop.  Brit,  (nth  Edition), 
differs  in  several  points  from  that  of  Plutarch.  He  writes: 

‘  In  the  last  years  of  his  reign,  he  had  sunk  into  a  perfect 
dotage.  All  his  time  was  spent  in  the  harem,  the  intrigues 
of  which  were  complicated  by  marrying  his  own  daughter 
Atossa.  At  the  same  time  his  sons  were  quarrelling  about 
his  succession.  One  of  them,  Ochus,  induced  his  father 
to  condemn  to  death  three  of  his  elder  brothers  who  stood 
in  his  way.  Shortly  afterwards  Artaxerxes  died.’  This 

It  is  different  with  Jewish  writers,  as  some  of  them  were  in  all 
probability  eunuchs  (see  Chapter  VII),  and  therefore  were  better  acquainted 
with  the  secrets  of  the  harem  than  the  average  Persians. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  49 


historian  evidently  does  not  believe  in  Plutarch’s  stories, 
that  Darius  was  found  guilty  of  a  conspiracy,  that  the 
second  brother,  Ariaspes,  committed  suicide,  and  that  the 
third  brother  was  murdered  by  Harpates  at  the  order  of 
Ochus.^®  We  must  indeed  take  these  stories  with  a  grain 
of  salt,  not  as  did  Justi  who  in  his  History  adheres  faithfully 
to  Plutarch’s  description  in  all  its  details. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  there  is  a  period  of  about  thirty 
years  at  least  between  the  death  of  the  first  queen  of 
Artaxerxes  and  the  alleged  marriage  to  his  own  daughter 
Atossa.  Who  was  queen  in  the  meantime  ?  If  there  had 
been  a  queen,  she  would  in  all  probability  have  taken  part 
in  the  intrigues  at  the  court,  as  did  all  the  Persian  queens, 
and  Greek  writers  would  have  told  us  something  about 
her.  There  seems  to  have  been  a  queen  v/ho  differed  from 
all  her  predecessors,  in  not  mixing  herself  in  the  intrigues 
of  the  court,  and,  therefore,  Greek  writers  did  not  know 
anything  about  her.  Now  it  is  true,  Plutarch  states  : 

‘  Some  historians,  amongst  whom  is  Heraclides  of  Cyme, 
affirm  that  Artaxerxes  married  not  only  Atossa,  but  also 
another  of  his  daughters  Amestris.’  However,  the  latter 
marriage  could  only  have  preceded  that  to  Atossa  by 
a  few  years  ;  for  Plutarch  tells  us  that  Amestris  had  been 
promised  to  Teribazus,  but  Artaxerxes,  instead  of  keeping 
his  promise,  married  her  himself,  promising  Teribazus  that 
he  should  have  his  youngest  daughter  Atossa,  of  whom, 
however,  he  also  became  enamoured  and  whom  he  married.^* 
Moreover,  Plutarch’s  statement  that  Artaxerxes  married  his 
own  daughters,  though  generally  accepted  by  all  historians, 

Ibid.  XXin,  6. 


Artaxerxes.,  XXX,  2-8, 
18  Ibid  XXVII,  7^9. 

H. 


E 


50  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


is  rather  doubtful.^^  We  have  no  similar  record  of  any 
other  Persian  king  of  the  Achaemenians,  Arsacids  and 
Sassanids.  Artaxerxes  may  have  had  a  queen  whose 
name  by  some  was  said  to  be  Atossa,  by  others,  Amestris. 
But  the  Greek  writers,  knowing  that  the  Zoroastrian  religion 
considers  next-of-kin  marriage  sacrosanct,  and  being  led 
astray  by  the  queen’s  names,  identical  with  those  of  his 
daughters,  believed  that  he  married  the  latter.^® 

Ed.  Meyer  describes  Artaxer^^  II  as  being  a  good- 
natured  monarch,  but  weak,  capricious,  readily  accessible 
to  personal  influences  and  dependent  upon  his  favourites  ; 
in  his  time  the  baleful  influence  of  the  harem  made 
appalling  progress.’  The  character  of  Ahasuerus,  as 
represented  in  the  Book  of  Esther,  could  not  be  more 
accurately  depicted  than  by  this  description.  However,^ 
notwithstanding  his  character,  Artaxei^s  II  was,  without 
exception,  the  greatest  monarch  of  the  Achaemenian 
dynasty.  It  is  true  he  does  not  deserve  any  credit  for 
his  power.  His  greatness  was  due  neither  to  his  own 
personality  nor  to  the  strength  of  the  Persian  empire, 
which  on  the  contrary  showed  in  all  parts  under  his  reign 

Cf.,  however,  Ed.  Meyer,  Gesch.,  Einleitung,  1910,  pp.  23-32,  and 
III,  p.  41.  He  accepts  this  statement  on  Plutarch’s  authority.  The  latter 
tells  us  in  connexion  with  Artaxerxes’  marriage  to  his  own  daughter :  ‘  his 
affection  for  Atossa  was  so  strong,  that  though  she  had  a  leprosy  which 
spread  itself  over  her  body,  he  was  not  disgusted  at  it  ’.  This  statement  is 
not  in  accord  with  that  of  Herodotus,  I,  139,  who  writes  :  ‘  If  a  Persian 
has  the  leprosy,  he  is  not  allowed  to  enter  into  a  city  or  to  have  any  dealings 
with  the  other  Persians.’ 

20  It  is  rather  curious  that  the  names  of  Artaxerxes’  queen  Hadassah 
and  Esther  should  be  almost  identical  with  those  of  his  two  daughters, 
Atossa  and  Amestris,  he  is  said  to  have  married. 

^  See  his  article  ^Artaxerxes’,  in  the  Encyclop.  Brit.,  nth  ed.,  and 
Geschichte,  V,  p.  18  r. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  5 1 


visible  signs  of  decline  and  decay,  but  to  the  discord  and 
corruption  of  the  Greeks.  Still  the  Persians  must  have 
looked  upon  him  with  the  greatest  admiration  for  having 
vindicated  their  honour.  Since  the  days-  of  Marathon  and 
the  humiliating  defeats  at  Salamis,  Plataea,  and  Mycale, 
the  Persians,  this^roud  nation  which  considered  itself  to 
be  greatly  superior  in  all  respects  to  _tl^  rest  of  mankind, 
could  not  help  admitting  the  superiority  of  the  Greeks,  by 
whom  they  had  been  disgracefully  defeated.  Ed.  Meyer 
observes  :  ‘  In  many  Persians  may  have  been  alive  the 
feeling  of  disgrace  that  the  great  campaign  had  ended  so 
deplorably,  that  they  were  even  unable  to  come  to  the 
assistance  of  the  brave  garrisons  in  Thrace.’  Both 
Artaxerxes  I,  who  was  compelled  to  recognize  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor,  and  Darius  II  were 
only  too  glad  when  the  Greeks  did  not  interfere  in  their 
own  dominion.^^  But  under  the  rule  of  Artaxerxes  II, 
the  Persians  could  lift  up  their  heads  again  and  look  down 
with  contempt  upon  their  former  arch-enemies,  the  Greeks. 
What  a  spectacle  it  must  have  been  for  the  Persians  to 
see  the  descendants  of  the  heroes  of  many  glorigus  battles 
crouching  at  the  feet  of  their  king  and  paying  him  divine 
honours  !  The  aim  for  which  Darius  I  and  his  successor 
Xerxes  had  striven  in  vain,  the  subjection  of  the  Greeks, 
was  actually  attained  by  Artaxerxes  II.  Greece  was 
subdued,  and  officially  recognized  Persia’s  suzerainty. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  this  king’s  memory  was  held  by 
the  Persians  in  the  greatest  esteem  and  reverence  even  in 


Herodotus  I,  134.  *3  Geschichte^  III,  p.  585. 

Egypt  would  never  have  succeeded  in  freeing  itself  from  Persia 
without  the  aid  of  the  Greeks. 

25  Artaxerxes,  XXII,  8. 


52  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


later  times.  Diodorus  Siculus  informs  us  why  Ochus,  the 
successor  of  Artaxerxes  II,  assumed  the  name  Artaxerxes  : 
‘  Artaxerxes,  ruling  the  kingdom  with  great  justice  and 
integrity,  and  being  a  great  lover  and  earnest  promoter  of 
peace,  the  Persians  decreed  that  all  succeeding  kings 
should  be  called  by  his  name.’  Such  an  unhistorical  and 
ridiculous  legend  must  have  come  from  an  oriental  source 
at  a  time  when  Persian  history  was  no  longer  known,  but 
the  memory  of  Artaxerxes  II  was  still  alive.  We  consider 
it  hardly  a  coincidence  that  the  founder  of  the  Neo-Persian 
empire  bore  the  name  of  Artaxerxes  (Ardashir,  Artashatr).^"^ 
Artaxerxes  II  was,  like  Darius  I,  incontestably  king 
of  Asia.  The  extent  of  his  empire  is  defined  in  the  Book 
of  Esther  by  the  geographical  term  :  ‘  from  India  unto 
Ethiopia’  "lyi  At  the  outset  of  his  reign,  he 

was  fortunate  in  recovering  many  Greek  cities ^  of  Asia 
Minor  lost  about  eighty  years  before  his  reign  by  his 
great-grandfather  Xerxes.  The  fall  of  Athens  (402  B.c.  E.) 
ended  its  hegemony  over  these  cities,  and  they  became  an 
easy  prey  to  the  Persian  empire.  Sparta’s  plan  to  continue 
Athen’s  policy  and  to  establish  a  new  hegemony,  was 
frustrated  by  the  corruption  of  Greece.  Plutarch  states 
that  Artaxerxes  forced  Agesilaus,  who  was  victorious  every¬ 
where,  to  leave  Asia  Minor  by  sending  Hermocrates  into 
Greece  with  a  great  amount  of  gold,  and  instructed  him  to 
corrupt  with  it  the  leading  men  in  the  Greek  states  and  to 
stir  up  a  Grecian  war  against  Sparta.  The  most  important 

In  his  Historical  Library^  XV,  2. 

See  Justi,  Geschichie,  p.  177. 

2®  There  may  be  some  doubt  whether  such  a  geographical  term  includes 
Egypt.  The  latter  country  was  no  longer  under  the  Persian  rule  at  the 
period  of  our  story.  But  we  may  reasonably  assume  that  its  independence 
was  never  recognized  by  the  Persian  kings  (cf.  Chapter  I,  n.  5). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  53 

cities  formed  a  league  against  it.  Artaxerxes  deprived 
Sparta  also  of  the  dominion  of  the  sea  through  the  agency 
of  the  Athenian  Conon  who  acted  in  conjunction  with  the 
Persian  satrap  Pharnabazus.  After  he  had  won  the  battle 
of  Cnidus,  he  drew  almost  the  whole  of  Greece  into  his 
interest.  The  Peace  of  Antalcidas  (387  B.C.  E.)  was  entirely 
of  his  own  making.  Sparta,  at  the  advice  of  Antalcidas, 
gave  up  to  the  Persian  king  ‘  all  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia 
Minor ^  and  the  islands  which  are  reckoned  among  its 
dependencies,  to  be  held  as  tributaries',  as  stipulated  by 
this  Peace.^^  It  is  noteworthy  that  both  Plutarch  and  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  in  describing  the  signal 
success  of  Artaxerxes  II,  use  exactly  the  same  expression. 
The  passage :  ‘  And  the  king  Ahasuerus  laid  a  tribute  on 
the  land  and  the  isles  of  the  sea  undoubtedly  refers  to  the 
Greek  part  of  Asia  Minor  and  the  islands  which  became 
tributary  to  this  king,  by  virtue  of  the  Peace  of  Antalcidas. 
It  was  concluded  five  years  after  the  events  narrated 
in  our  story.  Our  author  does  not  say  that  Ahasuerus 
came  into  the  possession  of  these  territories  by  means  of 
conquest.  He  was  an  historian,  and  knew  that  they  were 
not  acquired  by  force  of  arms  but  by  diplomacy.  Being 
well  acquainted  with  the  historical  events  of  that  period, 
he  was  justified  in  saying:  ‘And  all  the  acts  of  his  power 
and  of  his  might  .  .  .  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of 
the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Media  and  Persia  ?  ’  These 
high  terms  of  praise  were  well  merited,  and  justly  applied 
to  the  political  achievements  of  this  king.  Artaxerxes  II 
was  indeed,  from  the  Persian  point  of  view,  as  Diodorus 
said,  an  earnest  promoter  and  great  lover  of  peace.  By 
his  famous  ‘Royal  Peace’,  he  freed  his  empire  from  its 

29  Artaxerxes,  XX,  XXI,  6. 


Esther 
10.  I. 


Esther 

ro.  2. 


I 


54  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


hereditary  enemies,  gained  valuable  possessions,  and  de- 

A 

prived  Greece  of  its  independence,  so  that  the  Greeks 
themselves  had  hardly  anything  left  worth  fighting  for. 
But  from  a  Greek  point  of  view  the  Greek  was  right 
who  exclaimed  :  ‘  Alas  for  Greece,  when  the  Lacedae¬ 
monians  are  turning  Persians  !  ’ 

Darius  II  died  in  the  spring  of  404  B.C.E.  He  had 
appointed  his  eldest  son  Artaxerxes  as  his  successor.  This 
appointment  was  not  in  accord  with  the  precedent  of 
Darius  I,  who  had  appointed  his  younger  son  Xerxes  as 
his  successor,  because  he  was  born  in  the  purple.  According 
to  this  precedent,  Cyrus,  the  second  son  of  Darius  II,  had 
a  better  claim  to  the  throne,  having  been  born  after  the 
latter  had  become  king.^^  It  was  also  well  known  that 
Parysatis,  the  all-powerful  queen,  the  mother  of  both 
Artaxerxes  and  Cyrus,  was  strongly  in  favour  of  her 
younger  son.  Hence  Artaxerxes  1 1,  at  the  beginning  of 
his  reign,  did  not  feel  himself  secure  in  the  possession  of 
the  throne.  He  may  have  well  remembered  how  Xerxes  H, 
after  a  reign  of  forty-five  days,  had  been  murdered  by  his 
brother  Sogdianus,  and  the  latter  in  his  turn,  after  several 
months,  at  the  order  of  his  own  father  Darius  1 1.  Thus 
fratricide  was  not  unusual  among  the  members  of  his 
dynasty.  Cyrus,  indeed,  at  the  accession  of  his  brother, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  consecration  at  Pasargadae,  designed 
to  murder  him.  This  design  was  frustrated  by  Tissaphernes. 
The  tears  and  entreaties  of  his  mother  prevailed  with 
Artaxerxes  to  pardon  his  brother  for  this  crime,  and  he 
sent  him  back  to  Lydia.^^  Soon  after,  despising  his 
brother  for  his  weakness  for  having  let  such  a  dangerous 
enemy  escape,  Cyrus  again  began  to  conspire  against 

30  Ibid.  XXII,  4.  31  32  III^ 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  55 

him.  Artaxerxes  was  well  aware  of  his  designs,  being 
warned  of  all  his  movements  by  Tissaphernes.  But 
Parysatis  made  it  her  business  to  remove  the  king’s  sus¬ 
picions.®^  Meanwhile  Cyrus  gathered  a  large  army,  and 
also  wrote  to  the  Lacedaemonians  for  assistance,  making 
them  great  promises  in  case  he  should  achieve  his  aim. 
In  this  letter  he  spoke  in  very  high  terms  of  himself, 
telling  them  that  he  had  a  greater  and  more  princely 
heart  than  his  brother  ;  that  he  was  the  better  philosopher, 
being  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Magi,®^  and  that 
he  could  drink  more  wine  and  carry  it  better  (olvov  iriueLv 
TrXeLova  Kal  (pepeLv)  than  his  brother.®^  This  character¬ 
ization  of  Artaxerxes  II  by  his  brother  Cyrus  is  of  the 
highest  importance  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Book  of 
Esther.  Artaxerxes  was  indeed  a  weak  character.  He 
was  not  a  good  Zoroastrian,  for  under  his  reign  the  Zoroa- 
strian  religion  was  completely  corrupted.®®  Finally,  under 
the  influence  of  wine,  he  was  losing  his  senses.®"^ 

Having  made  all  preparations  for  carrying  out  his 
designs,  Cyrus  began  his  march  against  the  king  with 
a  numerous  army,  among  which  were  about  thirteen 
thousand  Greek  mercenaries.  He  found  one  pretence 
after  another  for  having  such  an  armament  on  foot ;  but 
his  real  designs  did  not  remain  long  undiscovered.  For 
Tissaphernes  went  in  person  to  inform  the  king  of  them.®® 
Therefore  on  the  march  Cyrus  openly  declared  his  inten¬ 
tions  to  overthrow  his  brother  and  to  seize  the  crown. 

Artaxerxes,  IV,  3. 

Cyrus  evidently  meant  to  imply  to  the  Greeks  that  the  Magi  would 
willingly  assist  him  in  his  enterprise. 

Artaxerxes,  VI,  3-4.  See  Chapter  VI. 

.See  Chapter  VIII.  Artaxerxes,  VI,  6. 


Esther 
I.  2-9. 


56  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

This  rebellion  came  to  an  end  at  the  battle  of  Cunaxa  in 
which  his  army  was  defeated  and  Cyrus  lost  his  life.  This 
battle  occurred  in  October  404.  Now  it  is  well  known 
that  the  Babylonian  chronology  is  a  year  behind  that  of 
the  Greeks  and  Egyptians.  The  latter  had  the  system 
of  aiite-dating^  that  is  to  say,  the  year  in  which  a  king  died 
is  reckoned  as  the  lirst  year  of  the  succeeding  king,  and 
with  the  civil  New  Year  begins  the  second  year  of  his 
reign.  Accordingly  Artaxerxes  II,  having  ascended  the 
throne  in  the  year  404,>the  Greek  chronology  places  the 
battle  of  Cunaxa  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign.  The 
Babylonians,  however,  had  the  system  of  post-dating,  the 
year  in  which  a  king  ascends  the  throne  is  given  to  his 
predecessor,  while  the  first  year  of  his  own  reign  begins 
with  the  first  of  Nisan,  on  the  New  Year  festival,  in  which 
the  king  had  to  seize  the  hand  of  Bel-Marduk,  in  order  to 
be  recognized  as  legitimate  king.^^  The  Book  of  Esther 
was  undoubtedly  written  in  Babylonia,  and  according  to 
Babylonian  chronology,  the  year  404  in  which  Artaxerxes 
ascended  the  throne  was  reckoned  to  his  predecessor 
Darius  II,  and  his  own  reign  began  403.  Therefore  the 
battle  of  Cunaxa  occurred  two  years  and  a  half  after  his 
accession  to  the  throne. 

Cyrus  being  dead,  Artaxerxes  II  was  at  length  firmly 
established  on  his  throne.  He  could  now  in  perfect  security 
celebrate  the  long  delayed  coronation  festivities,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  victory  over  his  enemy.  It  was  done 
in  a  magnificent  fashion,  befitting  the  rank  of  the  Great 
King,  and  the  signal  occasion  ;  he  had  saved  his  life  and 
his  throne.  The  description  of  these  festivities  is  therefore 
by  no  means  exaggerated,  as  all  modern  commentators 

Cf.  Ed.  Meyer,  Forschungen,  pp.  437-502. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  57 

contend.^®  This  celebration  lasted  throughout  the  whole 
Winter,  one  hundred  and  eighty  days.  The  battle  of 
Cunaxa  occurred,  as  we  have  seen,  in  October,  and  the 
festivities  lasted  from  October  to  April. Satraps  and 
governors,  grandees  and  nobles,  from  all  parts  of  the 
empire,  not  a  few  from  a  great  distance,  arrived  daily  and 
departed  after  a  sojourn  of  a  few  days.  Many  who 
formerly  favoured  the  claim  of  Cyrus  may  have  hastened 
to  the  court  to  assert  their  loyalty  to  the  victorious  king. 
Plutarch  states :  ‘  There  were  turbulent  and  factious  men 
who  represented  that  the  affairs  of  Persia  required  a  king 
of  such  a  magnificent  spirit,  so  able  a  warrior,  and  so 
generous  a  master  as  Cyrus  was  ;  and  that  the  dignity 
of  so  great  an  empire  could  not  be  supported  without 
a  prince  of  high  thoughts  and. noble  ambition.’ All  these 
guests  had  to  be  magnificently  entertained.  Besides  these 
officials  and  nobles,  the  king  feasted  ‘  the  army  of  Persia 
and  Media  ’  that  is  to  say,  those  loyal 

warriors  who  came  to  his  assistance  against  his  brother. 
It  must  have  been  a  very  large  army,  though  the  number 
nine  hundred  thousand,  given  by  Xenophon, and  four 
hundred  thousand,  as  stated  by  Ctesias^^  and  Diodorus, 
is  evidently  exaggerated.  After  these  festivities  were  over, 
Artaxerxes  gave  a  special  feast  of  seven  days  to  the  inhabi- 

Paton,  p.  73,  and  numerous  other  exegetes,  regard  the  gathering  of 
nobles  from  all  provinces  for  a  feast  of  hundred  and  eighty  days  as  intrinsically 
improbable. 

According  to  Xenophon  {Cyropaedia,  VIII,  2.  6),  Susa  was  the  winter 
residence  of  the  Persian  kings. 

Artaxerxes^  VI,  1-2. 

Siegfried,  Wildeboer,  Paton,  &c.  believe  that  we  have  to  read 

nni  Dns 

Anabasis,  I,  7.  11-12, 


Pers.  41  ;  Diod.  XIV,  5. 


58  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

tants  of  the  capital,  that  is  to  say,  each  day  of  the  week 
a  different  part  of  the  population  was  invited.  It  may 
have  been  the  farewell  feast  before  the  king’s  departure 
from  Susa,  or  the  New  Year  festival  in  the  month  of 
Nisan.  On  the  seventh  day,  when  not  in  a  sober  condition, 
the  king  ordered  the  eunuchs  to  bring  to  the  banquet  his 
queen  Vashti  ‘  to  show  to  the  people  and  the  princes  her 
Esther  beauty ;  for  she  was  fair  to  look  on.  But  the  queen 
I,  10-12.  refused  to  come  at  the  king’s  commandment  by 

the  eunuchs’. 

For  the  interpretation  of  this  incident  we  again  refer 
to  Plutarch  who  tells  us:  ‘  Artaxerxes  married  a  beautiful 
and  virtuous  lady,  by  order  of  his  parents,  and  he  kept  her 
when  they  wanted  him  to  put  her  away.  For  the  king 
having  put  her  brother  to  death,  designed  that  she  should 
share  his  fate.  But  Artaxerxes  applied  to  his  mother  with 
many  tears  and  entreaties,  and,  with  much  difficulty,  pre¬ 
vailed  upon  her  not  only' to  spare  her  life,  but  to  excuse 
him  from  divorcing  her.’  Plutarch’s  source  for  this  story 
is  Ctesias  who  gives  a  more  detailed  account  of  this  event 
in  telling  us  that  the  whole  family  of  Hydarnes,  the  father 
of  Artaxerxes’  wife,  were  put  to  death  with  the  exception 
of  the  latter,  on  account  of  Teriteuchmes  the  son  of 
Hydarnes,  who  had  been  found  guilty  of  the  crimes  of 
adultery,  incest,  and  murder.^’^  We  must  bear  in  mind, 
that  by  opposing  the  will  of  his  parents,  Artaxerxes  might 
have  easily  forfeited  his  right  to  the  throne,  to  which  his 
claim,  as  we  have  seen,  was  questionable.  It  was  very 
dangerous  for  Parysatis  to  let  a  woman  whose  whole 
family  she  had  destroyed,  have  the  power  of  a  queen,  and 
she  indeed  exerted  all  her  influence  with  the  king  to 


\ 


Artaxerxes^  II,  2-3. 


Pers.  29. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  59 

deprive  him  of  the  succession.  But  Artaxerxes  cared  more 
for  his  wife  than  for  the  throne. 

Plutarch  tells  us  further  that  this  wife  of  Artaxerxes 
was  a  great  favourite  with  the  people :  ‘  What  afforded 
the  Persians  the  most  pleasing  spectacle  was  the  queen 
riding  in  her  chariot  with  the  curtains  open,  and  admitting 
the  women  of  the  country  to  approach  and  salute  her. 
These  things  made  his  administration  popular.’^®  This 
queen  and  her  mother-in-law  detested  each  other,  and 
quarrelled  continually.  When  Cyrus  rebelled,  the  queen 
openly  upbraided  her  mother-in-law  for  her  intercession 
by  which  she  had  saved  Cyrus’s  life,  and  accused  her  of 
favouring  the  claim  of  the  latter.^^  When  Parysatis 
executed  in  a  most  cruel  way  the  faithful  servants  of  the 
king  who  had  killed  Cyrus,  the  queen  complained  of  her 
injustice  and  cruelty. ‘These  expostulations  fixed  in 
the  heart  of  Parysatis,  who  was  naturally  vindictive  and 
barbarous  in  her  resentment  and  revenge,  such  a  hatred 
of  the  queen  that  she  contrived  to  take  her  off.  Deinon 
writes,  that  this  cruel  purpose  was  put  into  execution 
during  the  war ;  but  Ctesias  assures  us,  it  was  after  it. 
And  it  is  not  probable  that  he,  who  was  an  eye-witness 
to  the  transactions  of  that  court,  could  either  be  ignorant 
of  the  time  when  the  assassination  took  place,  or  could 
have  any  reason  to  misrepresent  the  date  of  it  ;  though 
he  often  deviates  into  fictitious  tales,  and  loves  to  give  us 
invention  instead  of  truth.’  ‘  It  was  only  from  the 
hatred  and  jealousy  which  Parysatis  had  entertained  of 
the  queen  from  the  first,  that  she  embarked  in  so  cruel 
a  design.  She  saw  that  her  own  power  with  the  king 

Artaxerxes^  V,  6.  Ibid.  VI,  6-7. 

50  Ibid,  XVII,  9.  01  Ibid.  VI,  8-9. 


6o  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


depended  only  on  his  reverence  for  her  as  mother  ;  whereas 
that  of  the  queen  was  founded  in  love,  and  confirmed  by 
the  greatest  confidence  in  her  fidelity.  The  point  she  had 
to  carry  was  difficult,  and  she  resolved  to  make  one 
desperate  effort’ Plutarch  further  states  that  after 
Parysatis  had  managed  to  poison  the  queen,  Artaxerxes 
inquired  into  the  affair,  and  executed  her  principal 
attendants  who  assisted  her  to  carry  out  this  design.  But 
‘  as  for  Parysatis,  the  king  did  not  reproach  her  with  the 
crime,  nor  punish  her  any  further  than  by  sending  her 
to  Babylon,  which  was  the  place  she  desired  to  retire 
to,  declaring  that  he  would  never  visit  that  city  while  she 
lived.’  However,  ‘  the  king  did  not  long  retain  his 

anger,  but  was  reconciled  to  his  mother,  and  sent  for  her 
to  court ;  because  he  saw  she  had  understanding  and  spirit 
enough  to  assist  in  governing  the  kingdom,  and  there  now 
remained  no  further  cause  of  suspicions  and  uneasiness 
between  them,’ 

The  queen  represented  in  the  Book  of  Esther,  her  great 
beauty  of  which  the  king  was  so  proud,  her  great  influence 
with  the  latter  that  she  presumed  upon  his  love  to  disobey 
his  behest,  cannot  be  better  depicted  than  by  Plutarch’s 
description  of  the  queen  of  Artaxerxes,  the  daughter  of 
Hydarnes.  Only  a  woman  like  the  latter  would  act  like 
Vashti,  openly  daring  to  disgrace  the  king  in  the  presence 
of  the  people,  presuming  upon  his  love  for  her  to  obtain 
pardon  for  her  disobedience.  The  queen  of  Artaxerxes 
evidently  lost  her  life  shortly  after  Cyrus’s  rebellion.  But 
Plutarch’s  description  of  the  method  of  her  assassination 
is  rather  fabulous,  and  the  deed  itself  seems  improbable. 
We  can  hardly  imagine  that  Parysatis  should  have  dared 
52  Ibid.  XIX,  1-2.  53  Jbid.  XIX,  8-10.  54  XXIII,  2. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  6l 


to  murder  a  queen  with  whom  the  king  was  so  deeply  in 
love,  and  that  the  latter  should  not  have  reproached  her 
with  this  crime,  and  should  have  been  reconciled  to  her 
after  a  short  time.  Plutarch  himself  refuses  to  accept 
Ctesias’s  account  that  Parysatis  plotted  against  the  queen 
and  resolved  to  carry  her  off  by  poison,  because  at  her 
own  request  the  king  promised  not  to  put  Clearchus  to 
death,  but  afterwards,  persuaded  by  the  queen,  he  destroyed 
all  the  prisoners,  except  Menon,  and  observes :  ‘  But  it  is 
a  great  absurdity  in  Ctesias  to  assign  so  disproportionate 
a  cause.  Would  Parysatis,  for  the  sake  of  Clearchus, 
undertake  so  horrid  and  dangerous  an  enterprise  as  that 
of  poisoning  the  king’s  lawful  wife,  by  whom  he  had 
children  and  an  heir  to  his  crown  ?  ’  Hence,  if  we  should 
accept  Plutarch’s  account  that  Parysatis  out  of  hatred  of 
the  queen  did  undertake  ‘  so  horrid  and  dangerous  an 
enterprise  ’,  we  must  assume  that  the  queen's  position  had 
undergone  some  change,  before  she  was  murdered  ;  that 
in  the  meantime  some  incident  occurred  which  to  a  certain 
degree  estranged  the  king  from  the  queen.  Parysatis, 
seeing  that  the  love  of  the  king  for  his  queen  was  no  longer 
so  strong  as  before,  and  being  afraid  lest  the  latter  should 
regain  her  former  influence,  resolved  to  murder  her.  The 
fact  that  the  king,  after  a  short  banishment,  recalled  her, 
shows  that  she  had  not  been  wrong  in  her  reasoning. 

Plutarch  further  states,  ‘  None  had  been  admitted  to 
the  king  of  Persia’s  table  but  his  mother  and  his  wife  ;  the 
former  of  which  sat  above  him  and  the  latter  below  him. 
Artaxerxes,  nevertheless,  did  that  honour  to  Ostanes  and 
Oxartes,  two  of  his  younger  brothers.’  This  statement 
shows  that  it  must  have  been  a  very  rare  privilege  to  dine 
Artaxerxes^  XVIII,  4-6.  Ibid.  V,  5. 


62  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

with  the  queen.^^  A  special  feature  of  his  character  was 
his  great  vanity,  claiming  credit  for  actions  which  he 
never  did  and  for  qualities  which  he  did  not  possess.  He 
was  desirous  of  having  the  world  believe  that  Cyrus  was 
killed  by  himself.^^  When  Mithridates,  the  real  slayer  of 
Cyrus,  to  whom  Artaxerxes  owed  his  life  and  throne,  in 
an  unguarded  moment,  under  the  influence  of  wine,  boasted 
of  his  deed,  he  was  put  to  death  in  a  manner  that  beggars 
description.^^  Artaxerxes  also  put  many  grandees  to 
death,  because  ‘  he  thought  that  they  despised  him  for 
the  ill-success  of  his  campaign.’ 

For  the  interpretation  of  the  incident  of  Vashti,  we 
must  call  attention  also  to  another  point.  We  have 


Plutarch’s  statement  that  none  had  been  admitted  to  the  king  of 
Persia’s  table  but  his  mother  and  his  wife,  is  quoted  by  Paton,  p.  150,  as 
proof  that  it  was  not  Persian  custom  to  seclude  the  women,  in  observing  : 
‘  Stateira  was  present  at  the  table  of  Artaxerxes  ’.  Paton’s  quotation  of 
Herodotus  IX,  no,  in  support  of  his  contention  that  Persian  queens  were 
present  at  the  royal  banquets,  is  just  as  incorrect.  Amestris  was  at  the 
birthday  feast  of  Xerxes,  but  Herodotus  clearly  implied  that  the  latter  did 
not  dine  with  the  people,  as  it  is  incredible  that  Amestris  would  have  dared 
‘  to  weary  Xerxes  by  her  importunity  ’  in  the  presence  of  the  people. 
Even  Masistes,  his  own  brother,  was  not  present  at  his  table,  as  he  was 
afterwards  called  into  his  presence.  Paton  further  quotes  Herodotus,  V,  18, 
where  the  Persian  ambassadors  say  to  Amyntas,  king  of  Macedonia,  that 
the  Persians  bring  their  wives  and  concubines  to  the  feasts.  But  it  is 
evident,  as  G.  Rawlinson  {ad  locum')  rightly  observes,  that  the  Persian 
ambassadors  presumed  upon  the  Greek  ignorance  of  Persian  customs,  in 
order  to  amuse  themselves  with  the  foreign  women.  They  had  indeed  to 
atone  with  their  lives  for  their  conduct,  as  Alexander,  Amyntas’s  son,  well 
knew  the  Persian  customs,  and  divined  their  intentions.  Paton  and  others 
overlook  what  Plutarch  says  about  the  Persians  that  they  ‘  are  so  extremely 
jealous  of  their  women,  that  capital  punishment  is  inflicted,  not  only  on  the 
man  who  speaks  to,  or  touches  one  of  the  king’s  concubines,  but  on  him 
who  approaches  or  passes  their  chariots  on  the  road’  {Aiiaxerxes, 
XXVH,  i). 

68  Ibid.  XIV,  5. 


59  Ibid.  XV,  XVI. 


60  Ibid.  XXV,  3. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  63 

already  mentioned  that  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II 
the  baleful  influence  of  the  harem*  made  appalling  progress. 
The  rule  of  the  harem  was  indeed  the  main  curse  of  the 
Persian  empire.  The  king  was  a  mere  tool  in  the  hands 
of  his  favourite  wives.  The  most  meritorious  grandees 
fell  victims  to  their  intrigues.  No  Persian  could  regard 
himself  for  one  moment  secure,  if  one  of  the  favourite  wives 
or  her  family  bore  him  ill  will.  Such  a  man,  his  life  being 
in  danger,  was  easily  persuaded  to  conspire  against  the 
king  or  join  an  insurrection.  The  patriotic  statesmen  must 
have  perceived  that  such  a  condition  was  disastrous  to  the 
existence  of  the  empire,  and  were  desirous  of  eliminating 
the  influence  of  the  women.  We  may  also  reasonably 
suppose  that  the  feminine  influence  at  the  court  set  a  bad 
example  to  all  Persian  families.^^  These  statesmen  were 
wrong  in  believing  in  a  remedy  for  an  incurable  evil. 
A  man  of  weak-  character,  be  he  king  or  beggar,  will 
always  yield  to  his  wife’s  influence,  for  good  or  evil. 

We  return  now  to  the  incident  of  Vashti :  The  king,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  deeply  in  love  with  the  queen,  and 
exceedingly  proud  of  her  beauty.  Having  been  under  the 
influence  of  wine — and  from  Cyrus’s  letter  to  the  Lacedae- 

Paton,  p.  162,  observes  :  ‘  The  absurdity  of  the  solemn  edict  com¬ 
manding  the  wives  to  obey  their  husbands  struck  even  the  doctors  of  the 
Talmud’.  The  latter  might  have  been  right,  if  they  had  ridiculed  the  idea 
of  making  the  husbands  masters  in  their  own  houses  by  a  royal  edict.  But 
in  remarking  that  ‘  even  the  weaver  is  master  in  his  own  house  they  were 
decidedly  wrong.  However,  Paton  and  the  rabbis  overlooked  the  fact  that 
the  royal  edict  does  not  say  anything  about  the  obedience  of  the  wives  to 
their  husbands,  but  merely  contains  the  fundamental  principle,  ^  that  every 
man  should  bear  rule  in  his  own  house  ’,  which  of  course  gives  the  husband 
power  also  over  his  wife.  Such  a  general  principle  is  by  no  means 
ridiculous,  since  it  formed  one  of  the  fundamental  Roman  laws,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Twelve  Tables,  according  to  which  the  life  and  liberty  of  children 
were  in  the  father’s  hands. 


64  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 
I.  13-22. 


monians  we  learn  that  Artaxerxes  II  did  not  possess  the 
Persian  ‘  virtue  ’  of  being  able  to  consume  great  quantities 
of  wine  without  becoming  intoxicated — the  king  commanded 
the  queen  to  come  and  partake  of  the  feast,  that  the  guests 
might  admire  her  beauty.  The  queen,  however,  being 
‘a  virtuous  lady’,  as  Plutarch  expresses  himself,  and  well 
aware  that  that  request  was  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Persian  customs,  properly  inferred  that  the  king  in  his 
right  senses  would  never  have  made  such  a  request,  and 
rightly  refused  to  show  herself  in  the  presence  of  an 
intoxicated  crowd.  Artaxerxes,  exceedingly  vain,  and 
ashamed  to  admit  that  he  was  under  the  influence  of  his 
wife,  ‘  was  very  wroth  and  his  anger  burned  in  him  The 
thought  might  have  occurred  to  him,  having  no  authority 
in  his  own  palace,  how  could  he  expect  the  people  to  obey 
his  commands?  The  queen’s  disobedience  could  not  pass 
with  impunity. 

‘  Then  the  king  said  to  the  wise  men  which  knew  the 
times  ....  and  the  next  unto  him  .  .  .  .  ,  the  seven  princes 
of  Persia  and  Media,  which  saw  the  king’s  face  and  which 
sat  the  first  in  the  kingdom  :  “  What  shall  we  do  unto  the 
queen  Vashti  according  to  law,  because  she  hath  not 
performed  the  commandment  of  the  king  Ahasuerus  by  the 
eunuchs  ?  ”  ’  The  royal  councillors  to  whom  this  question 
was  addressed  were  well  acquainted  with  the  weak  spots 
in  the  king’s  character  and  with  his  love  for  the  queen. 
This  question  put  them  in  a  most  embarrassing  situation. 
Considering  the  queen’s  disobedience  from  a  purely  moral 
point  of  view,  they  could  not  but  admit  that  under  the 
circumstances  her  conduct  was  justifiable.  Yet  to  defend 
her  action  would  have  been  nothing  short  of  high  treason. 
The  authority  of  the  king  was  indeed  at  stake,  if  the  queen 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  65 

should  be  acquitted.  It  was  the  latter’s  duty  to  comply 
with  the  king’s  behest,  even  if  it  was  not  in  accordance 
with  the  Persian  customs.  Besides,  if  we  may  believe 
Herodotus,  the  Persian  kings  were  not  bound  by  customs, 
as  there  was  an  ancient  law  decreeing  that  the  king  of 
Persia  might  do  whatever  he  pleased.®^  Moreover,  it  was 
not  for  the  councillors  to  decide  the  guilt  of  the  queen. 
The  question  put  before  them  was  merely  concerning  the 
punishment  that  should  be  meted  out  to  her.  This  was 
a  very  difficult  problem.  They  did  not  want  to  condemn 
her  to  death,  lest  after  a  short  time  the  king’s  yearning 
for  his  lost  queen  might  return,  and  they  would  have  to 
atone  with  their  lives  for  their  judgement.*^^  They  feared 
the  same  fate,  if  they  should  propose  her  divorce,  as 
nothing  would  prevent  the  king  from  marrying  her  again, 
if  he  still  loved  her,  and  the  queen,  after  regaining  her 
power,  in  her  resentment  against  them,  might  easily  bring 
about  their  destruction.  If  they  should  condemn  her  to 
the  loss  of  the  rank  of  a  queen,  it  was  probable  that  she 
would  soon  regain  her  former  influence  with  the  king, 
without  the  royal  rank,  and  again  would  not  fail  to  avenge 
herself  upon  them.  Yet  the  latter  course  was  the  lesser 
evil  and  the  only  way  out  of  this  dilemma.  Therefore,  the 
councillors  condemned  her  to  the  punishment  of  degrada¬ 
tion  for  her  conduct.  But  this  queen,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
a  great  favourite  with  the  people.  It  was  not  enough  to 
hold  up  the  authority  of  the  king,  but  also  to  demonstrate 
the  justice  of  her  punishment.  Artaxerxes’  administration 

Herodotus  III,  31. 

The  Targumim  indeed  say  that  after  sleeping  off  his  wine-debauch 
and  having  grown  sober,  Ahasuerus  executed  the  councillors  who  advised 
him  to  put  Vashti  to  death. 

H. 


F 


66  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


was  very  popular,  as  we  have  seen,  and  they  did  not  wish 
that  by  their  advice  the  king  should  lose  his  popularity. 
Besides,  no  king  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign  likes  to  gain 
the  reputation  of  a  tyrant.  Hence,  the  councillors  repre¬ 
sented  the  queen’s  offence  as  a  danger  to  the  well-being 
of  the  empire,  saying :  ‘  Vashti  the  queen  hath  not  done 
wrong  to  the  king  only,  but  also  to  all  the  princes,  and 
to  all  the  people  that  are  in  the  provinces  of  the  king 
Ahasuerus.  For  this  deed  of  the  queen  shall  come  abroad 
unto  all  women,  so  that  they  shall  despise  their  husbands 
in  their  eyes,  when  it  shall  be  reported,  the  king  Ahasuerus 
commanded  Vashti  the  queen  to  be  brought  in  before  him, 
but  she  came  not.  Likewise  shall  the  ladies  of  Persia  and 
Media  say  this  day  unto  all  the  king’s  princes,  which  have 
heard  of  the  deed  of  the  queen.  Thus  shall  there  arise 
too  much  contempt  and  wrath.’  The  councillors,  therefore, 
advised  the  king  to  promulgate  the  degradation  of  the 
queen  by  a  decree,  in  proposing :  ‘  If  it  please  the  king,  let 
there  go  a  royal  commandment  from  him,  and  let  it  be  written 
among  the  laws  of  the  Persians  and  the  Medes,  that  it  be 
not  altered,  that  because  Vashti  came  not  before  the  king 
Ahasuerus,  the  king  shall  give  her  royal  estate  unto 
another  that  is  better  than  she.’  Such  a  decree  would 
have  the  effect  of  making  the  lives  of  the  Persians  more 
secure  at  the  court  and  more  peaceful  at  home.^^  The 

64  The  clause  IDJ?  nmn  is  generally  regarded  as  corrupt.  The 

rendering  of  the  English  version  :  ^  and  that  it  should  be  published  according 
to  the  language  of  every  people’,  is  of  course  quite  impossible.  We  have 
already  mentioned  that  the  Greek  version  omitted  this  clause  (see  Chapter  I, 
n.  8).  Bertheau-Ryssel,  Wildeboer,  Siegfried  and  others  emend  it,  with 
Hitzig,  to  ley  np  ^13  what  suits  him’).  These  commentators  could 
have  saved  themselves  the  trouble  of  emending  this  corrupt  clause,  if  they 
had  seen  how  such  a  corruption  might  have  occurred.  We  may  assume 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  67 

councillors  of  course  could  not  mention  the  deplorable 
state  of  harem-rule  at  the  court,  but  only  the  latter’s  effect : 

‘  And  when  the  king’s  decree,  which  he  shall  make,  shall 
be  published  throughout  all  his  empire,  for  it  is  great,  all 
the  wives  shall  give  to  their  husbands  honour,  both  to 
great  and  small  This  affair  undoubtedly  caused  an 
estrangement  and  a  bitter  feeling  between  the  king  and 
Vashti.  The  former  could  not  get  out  of  his  mind  the 
humiliation  he  suffered  in  the  presence  of  his  subjects,  and 
the  latter  was  indignant  at  the  injustice  of  her  degradation. 
Parysatis,  taking  advantage  of  this  state  of  affairs,  resolved 

that  there  were  manuscripts  in  which  the  'anmmdlm  ran  in  the  following 
lines  : 

Dyi  nv  biO  nnriDD  njnDi  ks 
iJT’nn  b^  nvntj 

n?^n  nnmn  thn 

We  may  further  assume  that  some  scribe  misspelt  the  words  Dyi 

or  made  a  blot  on  them,  and  not  having  had  the  proper  means  handy  to 
erase  them,  wrote  the  same  words  again  underneath  in  the  following  line, 
after  the  words  ^53  mTl!?,  as  between  the  first  and  second 

chapters  there  was  in  all  probability  a  free  space.  Subsequently,  some 
copyist  read  ,  and  understood  the 

passage  to  mean  :  ‘That  every  man  should  bear  rule  in  his  own  house,  and 
every  people  according  to  its  own  language  But  as  the  passage  in  this 
construction  did  not  seem  to  give  a  proper  sense,  he  may  have  changed  the 
words  IJVJ’bD  DV'l  into  and  by  way  of  interpretation,  added 

the  marginal  gloss  “imo.  Haupt  (Critical  Notes,  p.  131),  considers  the 
whole  clause  a  late  gloss,  since  in  Talmud  Babli  Megillah  12  b  the  passage 
I.  22  is  discussed,  but  there  is  no  reference  to  this  clause.  But  this  fact  is 
no  proof  at  all  that  the  rabbis  did  not  know  this  passage.  They  did  not 
discuss  it,  because  it  seemed  to  them  incomprehensible.  We  cannot  expect 
them  to  suggest  that  this  clause  was  a  gloss  or  corruption.  Moreover, 
a  suggestion  that  a  gloss  was  added  in  post-talmudic  times,  when  the  Book 
of  Esther  had  been  already  for  hundreds  of  years  one  of  the  most  esteemed 
canonical  books,  deserves  no  consideration  whatever.  Finally,  a  gloss  is 
supposed  to  have  some  sense,  and  this  clause  has  none  at  all. 

F  2 


68  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


to  put  her  out  of  the  way,  lest  the  king  might  be  reconciled 
to  his  wife  and  she  regain  her  former  power. 

We  are  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  our  interpretation 
is  not  in  accordance  with  the  text  under  discussion,  which 
reads :  li’on  fn'  Nun  ik’n 

n:JDr2  nn'i^n  (‘  that  Vashti  come  no  more  before  king 

Ahasuerus,  and  the  king  shall  give  her  royal  estate  unto 
another  that  is  better  than  she  ’).  Accordingly,  the  text 
distinctly  states  that  Vashti  was  actually  divorced  and  not 
merely  degraded  from  the  rank  of  a  queen.  However, 
by  a  critical  analysis  of  this  passage  we  can  demonstrate 

that  the  text  here  must  be  slightly  corrupted.  If  the 

\ 

promulgation  of  Vashti’s  punishment  was  intended  to  have 
a  salutary  effect  upon  the  conduct  of  the  Persian  women 
for  all  times,  we  would  expect  to  find  in  this  edict  ‘  written 
among  the  laws  of  the  Persians  and  the  Medes  ’,  the  cause 
of  her  punishment.  Furthermore,  the  second  part  of  this 
passage  is  quite  superfluous,  it  being  a  matter  of  course 
for  the  king  to  choose  another  queen,  if  Vashti  was 
divorced,  and  cannot  be  a  part  of  the  edict;  why  should 
such  a  trivial  fact  be  written  among  the  laws  of  the 
Persians  and  the  Medes  ?  Nor  can  it  have  been  the  advice 
of  the  councillors,  as  this  was  unnecessary.  The  original 
reading  of  this  passage  may  have  been  something  like 

ns'n  (bv) 

nJDD  naiDn  nniV“i5^  ‘because  Vashti  came  not  before  the 
king  Ahasuerus,  the  king  shall  give  her  royal  estate  unto 
another  that  is  better  than  she  ’ ;  but  the  original  reading 

Plutarch’s  statement  that  shortly  before  the  murder  of  Stateira,  the 
latter  and  Parysatis  had,  in  appearance,  forgotten  their  old  suspicions  and 
animosities,  and  began  to  visit  and  eat  at  each  other’s  table,  implies  that 
the  queen  no  longer  interfered  with  her  mother-in-law  (Artaxerxes,  XIX,  5). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  69 

NUn  could  also  mean  :  ‘because  she  will  not  come’. 

In  either  case,  the  text,  according  to  our  emendation, 
would  contain  both  cause  and  effect,  and  be  in  agreement 
with  our  presentation  of  that  incident.  Vashti  lost  only 
her  rank  as  queen,  but  still  remained  the  lawful  wife  of 
Artaxerxes.^® 

There  is  still  another  point  to  be  discussed.  The  name 
of  the  queen  of  Artaxerxes  II  was  not  Vashti,  but  Stateira. 
Plutarch  is  no  doubt  right  on  this  point,  as  Ctesias  who 
lived  at  the  court  of  Artaxerxes  must  have  known  the 
name  of  that  queen.  As  far  as  the  other  Greek  writers 
are  concerned,  all  of  them  are  more  or  less  dependent 
upon  Ctesias,  and  they  took  over  the  name  of  this  queen 
from  the  latter.  The  name  of  the  queen  was  indeed 
Stateira,  but  having  been  a  famous  beauty  and  a  great 
favourite  with  the  people,  she  was  styled  Vashti^  which, 
as  was  recognized  long  ago,®”^  means  in  the  Persian  language 
‘  beauty  ’.  In  the  memory  of  the  people,  her  proper  name 
was  displaced  by  this  epithet.  We  have  a  classic  example 
of  such  a  phenomenon  in  the  name  of  the  famous  Greek 
woman  who  lived  in  Egypt  under  the  reign  of  king  Amasis. 
Her  real  name  was  Doricha^  yet  Herodotus  and  other 
classic  writers  call  her  by  her  epithet  Rhdddpis,  ‘  the  rosy- 
cheeked  ’,  though  they  knew  that  Sappho  mentioned  her 
by  her  real  name.®^  Our  author  may  likewise  have  known 
that  the  queen’s  real  name  was  Stateira,  and  nevertheless 
preferred  to  call  her  by  the  widely-known  epithet  Vashti. 

Renan,  in  his  History  of  the  People  of  Israel^  VIII,  15,  note,  is  the 
only  historian  who  conjectured  that  ‘  possibly  there  is  some  reminiscence  of 
Stateira ^nd  Parysatis  ’. 

6’^  Cf.  Richardson’s  Ueber  morgenldndische  Vdlker^  P-  166;  Cassel, 

/.  c.,  p.  27,  and  Justi,  Iran.  Namenb.,  under  ‘Wasti'. 

Herodotus  II,  134-5,  and  cf.  G.  Rawlinson,  n.  2,  nd  locum. 


70  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


However,  the  possibility  that  Vashti  is  a  hypocoristicon 
of  a  compounded  name  Sta-teira  —  Asta-teh'a  —  Washta- 
teh'a^  which  may  mean  ‘  the  beauty  of  the  god  Mercury 
ought  also  to  be  considered.®^ 

We  have  already  observed  that  Plutarch  is  silent  as  to 
the  immediate  successor  of  the  assassinated  queen.  Ctesias 
may  have  known  nothing  about  it,  as  he  left  the  court 
about  398  B.c.E."®  But  the  former  states  a  fact  that 

The  name  Stateira  is,  according  to  Justi,  Iran.  Namenb.,  compounded 
of  the  two  elements  sta  and  teira.  The  latter  element  is  evidently  identical 
with  ter  in  the  Persian  personal  names  Teribaziis,  Teridates,  Teritenchmes,  &c., 
which  is  generally  taken  by  Justi  and  others  to  be  the  Persian  name  of  the 
planet  Mercury  (as  god,  the  scribe  of  Ahuramazda,  and  identical  with 
Nabtt).  The  same  divine  element  we  may  see  in  the  names  Aghrimat- 
teira,  Baeshat-tezra,  and  Pairish-teira.  Doubtful,  however,  is  the  meaning 
of  the  first  element  sta.  The  latter  occurs  also  in  two  other  Persian  names 
'iTajxiv-qs  and  'STapdfirjs,  the  meaning  of  which  is,  according  to  Justi, 
doubtful.  We  suggest  that  the  name  Sta-teira  corresponds  to  the  Persian 
name  Vashta-teira.  The  name  Vashti  is  rendered  in  the  Greek  version  into 
''Kotiv  and  ''Koti,  in  which  the  first  radical  is  represented  by  a  vowel.  The 
same  rendering  is  found  also  in  other  Persian  names,  as  Vidarna  —  ’ISepi^Tys, 
Vindafarna  —  ’lvTa<pepurj5,  Vahuk  =  Vashtak  —  ' KcTaKTos^  Vaumisa  = 

’'Clpuaos,  See.  Lucian’s  rendering  of  Vashti  \nio  Ovdanv  and  that  of  Josephus 
into  Ovdarrj  are  due  to  the  Hebrew  pronunciation  of  this  Persian  name. 
Now  the  element  asta  is  actually  found  in  several  Persian  names,  as  in 
'KaTi^aaas,  ' haTaaTrrjs  (Aeschylus,  Persae  22),  and  'KaT-r]^.  The  same 
element  we  may  see  in  the  name  Oyaaro/SaAo?,  We  further  find  that 
a  vowel  at  the  beginning  of  a  name  was  regarded  as  prothetic  ;  so  we  find 
side  by  side  the  names  'Aana/xlTp7]s  and  'iTtapurp-qs,  'Tarraairrjs  and  'Snaaivrjs, 
Afrudsha  and  Frudsha,  Amirchvand  and  Mirchvandj  Vardan  =  ‘Pobdvqs  and 
’Opbdvr]s.  Considering  all  these  points,  we  may  well  assume  that  the 
Persian  name  Vashta-teira  was  rendered  by  the  Greeks  into  Asta-teira,  and 
by  treating  the  first  vowel  as  prothetic,  was  also  pronounced  Sta-teira. 
The  Babylonians,  however,  shortened  this  compounded  name  by  omitting 
the  second  element  and  by  attaching  to  the  shortened  name  the  Babylonian 
hypocoristic  termination  i. 

■^0  His  departure  from  the  court  may  have  had  some  connexioh  with  the 
banishment  of  Parysatis,  who  was  a  friend  of  Clearchus  whom  Ctesias  so 
greatly  admired  (Plutarch,  Arta.verxes,  XVIII).  The  latter  may  have  been 
her  protege. 


THE  ROOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  7 1 


somewhat  seems  to  corroborate  the  incident  of  the  second 
chapter  of  Esther :  ‘  Artaxerxes  had  three  hundred  and 
sixty  concubines,  all  women  of  the  greatest  beauty 
This  reminds  us  of  the  gathering  of  the  virgins  for  the 
selection  of  a  successor  of  Vashti.  Now,  it  is  true,  Diodorus 
Siculus  tells  us  exactly  the  same  about  Darius  And 

all  Persian  kings  had  a  large  number  of  concubines.  But 
the  current  interpretation  of  the  incident  of  the  second 
chapter  is  erroneous.  The  royal  harem  could  not  have 
been  maintained  without  having  taken  into  it,  either  by 
force  or  with  the  consent  of  their  relatives,  the  daughters 
of  the  subjects.  From  time  to  time  such  a  harem  had  to 
be  replenished  and  rejuvenated  by  younger  women.'^^  The 
advice  about  the  gathering  of  the  virgins  was  not  an  inno¬ 
vation  under  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus,  as  such  gatherings 
were  customary  in  the  Persian  empire.  The  author  of 
our  story  merely  intends  to  inform  us  that  on  the  occasion 
of  such  a  gathering  Esther  became  the  queen  of  Ahasuerus. 
The  latter,  when  his  wrath  was  appeased,  ‘  remembered 
Vashti,  and  what  she  had  done,  and  what  was  decreed 
•against  her  Remembering  now  that  she  was  unjustly 
condemned  and  publicly  disgraced,  his  love  for  her  revived, 
and  he  mourned  her  loss.  Among  the  women  of  his  harem, 
there  was  none  the  equal  of  his  lost  wife  in  beauty  and 
other  qualities,  who  could  replace  her.  Nor  was  there 
among  the  high  nobility  with  whom  the  royal  family  was 
wont  to  intermarry  such  a  woman  to  efface  in  the  heart 
of  the  king  the  image  of  the  former  queen.  Therefore 

Ariaxerxes,  XXVII,  5.  '^2  Diodorus  XVII,  8. 

”2  See  n.  12.  Diodorus  indeed  alludes  to  such  gatherings  in  saying  that 
these  three  hundred  and  sixty  women  were  the  greatest  beauties  that  could 
be  found  throughout  Asia. 


/ 


Esther 
2.  2-4 


72  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


the  courtiers  advised  the  king  that  such  a  customary 
gathering  of  virgins  should  be  held  now — though  the  need 
of  the  harem  may  not  have  required  it,  or  it  may  not  have 
been  the  usual  period  for  such  a  gathering — ^and  among 
those  gathered  might  be  found  one  woman  who  would  be 
in  every  respect  equal  to  Vashti.  It  was  by  no  means 
necessary  that  such  a  woman  should  succeed  the  latter 
as  queen.  But  from  the  king’s  weak  character  it  was  a 
foregone  conclusion  that  the  latter  would  bestow  on  her 
the  highest  rank,  if  she  succeeded  in  completely  obliterating 
in  his  heart  the  memory  of  his  former  wife.  The  courtiers 
in  saying  :  ‘  Let  the  maiden  which  pleaseth  the  king  be 
queen  instead  of  Vashti’,  may  have  alluded  to  the  agree¬ 
ment  of  Darius  I  with  the  other  conspirators,  that  the 
Persian  kings  should  not  marry  outside  of  their  own 
families,  and  advised  the  king  to  disregard  this  agreement, 
which  under  present  circumstances  became  invalid ;  since 
of  these  noble  families  there  was  none  worthy  of  taking 
the  place  of  Vashti. 

Of  further  interest  for  the  character  of  Artaxerxes  II 
is  Plutarch’s  account  of  his  return  from  the  campaign 
against  the  Cadusians  :  ‘  He  found  on  his  arrival  at  his 
capital  that  he  had  lost  many  brave  men,  and  almost  all 
his  horses ;  and  imagining  that  he  was  despised  for  his 
losses  and  the  ill-success  of  the  expedition,  he  became 
suspicious  of  his  grandees.  Many  of  them  he  pnt  to  death 
in  anger ^  and  more  out  of  feari  Though  the  expedition 
against  the  Cadusians  took  place  in  a  later  period  of  his 
reign,  and  therefore  these  executions  have  no  connexion 
with  our  story,  nevertheless  this  conduct  sheds  light  upon 
this  king’s  character.  A  king  who  puts  to  death  many 

Artaxerxes,  XXV,  5. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  73 


grandees  in  anger,  and  more  out  of  fear,  was  quite  capable 
of  executing  his  prime  minister  Haman,  his  sons  and 
partizans,  for  the  same  reason.  No  less  characteristic  of 
this  king  is  his  treatment  of  Tissaphernes.  The  latter  had 
saved  his  life  at  Pasargadae  and  watched  all  the  move¬ 
ments  of  Cyrus,  informing  the  king  of  his  designs,  as  already 
mentioned.  Plutarch  calls  him  ‘  the  most  implacable 
enemy  of  the  Greeks and  thus,  from  a  Persian  point 
of  view,  he  must  have  been  the  most  ardent  patriot.  His 
final  reward  was  to  be  executed  upon  charges  preferred 
against  him  by  his  greatest  enemies,  the  Greeks  and 
Parysatis.^® 

In  support  of  our  contention  that  Ahasuerus  of  Esther 
is  identical  with  Artaxerxes  II,  we  may  call  attention  to 
the  following  fact.  The  French  Archaeologist  Dieulafoy 
describes  the  ruins  of  Susa,  and  demonstrates  that  the 
description  of  the  palace  of  Ahasuerus  in  the  Book  of 
Esther  is  absolutely  correct.^^  But  the  palace  to  which 
this  scholar  refers  is  not  that  of  Xerxes  but  that  of 
Artaxerxes  II.  The  palace  in  which  Xerxes  and  his 
successors  resided  had  been  destroyed  by  a  fire  and  was 
rebuilt  by  Artaxerxes  II,  as  the  latter  in  his  inscription 
informs  us.'^®  Who  knows  ’whether  the  palace  of  Xerxes, 
dating  from  an  early  period,  was  not  in  many  points 
different  from  that  given  in  our  story  ? 

We  may  mention  also  a  remarkable  statement  of  Bar 
Hebraeus  in  his  Chronicles-.  ‘This  Artaxerxes  (II)  the 

Artaxerxes^  XXIII,  i.  Ibid.,  2. 

M.  Dieulafoy,  L'Acropole  de  la  Susa,  1890. 

Die  altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  p.  45. 

Baton,  p.  65,  also  observes :  ‘  The  palace  of  Xerxes,  as  described  in 
Esther,  is  not  unlike  the  palace  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  as  excavated  by 
Dieulafoy  at  Susa. 


74  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

Hebrews  call  Ahasuerus ;  and  therefore  Johanan  was  of 
the  opinion  that  the  story  of  Esther  occurred  in  his  days  ’ 
jfot  ^090.^0/  9 / 

oo»  w»o»ci>oq.as?).®®  This  plain  statement  that 
Artaxerxes  II  was  by  the  Hebrews  called  Ahasuerus  must 
rest  upon  some  tradition  still  preserved  in  the  days  of 
Bar-Hebraeus  {c.  1250  C.E.).  On  the  basis  of  this  tradition, 
and  for  no  other  reason,  Johanan  suggested  that  the  story 
of  Esther  occurred  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  H,  seeing 
in  this  story  a  similar  phenomenon  that  the  Ahasuerus 
of  the  Hebrew  text  is  in  the  Greek  version  called 
Artaxerxes. 

Having  now  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  the  king  A 
described  in  the  Book  of  Esther  was  Artaxerxes  H,  we 
have  to  explain  why  the  Hebrew  text  should  contain 
a  fictitious  name.  The  solution  of  this  problem  may  be 
found  by  a  comparison  of  the  political  careers  of  the  two 
Persian  kings  Xerxes  I  and  Artaxerxes  II,  and  by  taking 
into  account  historical  events  in  a  later  period  of  the 
Persian  empire. 

No  nation  cherishes  the  memory  of  a  ruler  by  whom 
it  was  humiliated.  The  memory  of  Xerxes  was  no  doubt 
detested  by  the  Persians  in  a  later  period,  after  the  passing 
of  the  Achaemenian  dynasty,  when  they  looked  back  at 
their  glorious  past,  and  could  freely  express  their  opinions 
about  the  happenings  of  those  times.  After  four  years 
of  preparations,  with  enormous  forces  at  his  command, 
Xerxes  was  disgracefully  defeated  several  times  by  the 
comparatively  small  army  of  the  Greeks,  and  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  these  defeats,  lost  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor, 
Thrace,  and  Cyprus.  By  these  misfortunes  Xerxes  put 

The  Cht‘onicles  of  Bar-Hebraeus^  p.  32. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  75 

upon  the  haughty  Persians  the  stigma  of  cowardice.  The 
later  Persians  could  vindicate  the  honour  of  their  ancestors 
only  by  laying  the  blame  for  these  defeats  on  Xerxes, 
contending  that  they  were  not  due  to  any  lack  of  courage 
in  the  Persian  armies,  but  to  the  misfortune  of  having 
been  under  the  command  of  an  incapable  ruler.  The  dis¬ 
paraging  description  of  Xerxes’s  personality  by  late  classical 
writers  may  have  had  its  source  of  information  in  the 
Orient.  No  Persian  would  have  objected  if  Xerxes  was 
represented  as  a  weak  character. 

The  condition  of  the  Persian  empire,  as  far  as  its 
foreign  relations  were  concerned,  exhibited  under  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes  II  a  sharp  contrast  to  that  under  Xerxes. 
The  memory  of  the  former,  who  humiliated  the  hereditary 
enemies  of  the  Persian  empire  and  vindicated  its  honour, 
could  not  but  be  sacred  to  every  Persian.  The  legend  men¬ 
tioned  above,  that  in  honour  of  Artaxerxes  II,  the  Persians 
decreed  that  all  his  successors  should  bear  the  name 
Artaxerxes,  must  have  its  origin  in  the  Orient  in  a  period 
when  the  Persian  history  of  the  Achaemenian  empire  was  no 
longer  well  known.  The  names  Arses  and  Darius  III,  who 
succeeded  Artaxerxes  III,  were  sunk  in  oblivion.  But 
Artaxerxes  II  was  a  name  never  to  be  forgotten. 

The  Persian  empire  overthrown  by  Alexander  the 
Great  was,  after  an  interruption  of  about  eighty  years, 
resurrected  in  the  year  248  B.C.  E.,  though  under  another 
name,  Parthia.  The  founders  of  the  Parthian  empire, 
Arsaces  and  Tiridates,  and  their  successors  traced  their 
lineage  to  Artaxerxes  II,  and  based  upon  it  their  claim 
as  rightful  heirs  to  the  empire  of  the  Achaemenians,^^ 

See  Justi,  Iran.  Namettb.,  p.  28.  Ed.  Meyer  [Encycl.  Brit.,  under 
‘Arsaces  ’)  says  :  ‘  A  later  tradition,  preserved  by  Arrian,  derives  Arsaces 


76  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

though  this  claim  may  have  no  real  foundation.  The 
representation  of  the  alleged  famous  ancestor  of  the 
Parthian  kings  as  a  weak  character,  and  the  recital  about 
him  of  uncomplimentary  details  in  the  Jewish  sacred 
writings,  was  not  without  danger  for  the  Jews  in  the  East, 
and  may  indeed  have  been  the  cause  of  persecutions.  We 
must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Parthian  empire  was  established 
in  the  Alexandrian  age,  when  the  Jewish  writings  were 
being  rendered  into  Greek.  The  Parthians  were  somewhat 
imbued  with  Greek  culture.  The  Arsacids  even  founded 
Greek  cities.  When  Arsaces  Mithridates  conquered 
Babylon,  he  assumed  the  epithet  Philhellene.^^  The 
hostile  attitude  of  the  Greeks  towards  the  Jews  in  the 
second  century  B.C.  E.  was  no  doubt  just  as  intense  in  the 
East  under  the  Arsacids  as  in  the  West  under  the  Seleucids. 
The  presumption  that  Greeks  actually  accused  the  Jews 
of  slandering  publicly  and  annually  the  memory  of  the 
famous  ancestor  of  the  Parthian  kings,  whose  name  ought 
to  be  sacred  to  everybody,  is  very  likely.  Therefore  the 
Jews  were  compelled  to  choose  between  two  alternatives: 
either  to  suppress  the  Book  of  Esther  altogether  and  at 
the  same  time  abolish  the  festival  of  Purim,  or  to  change 
it  in  such  a  way  that  it  might  not  be  offensive  to  the 
national  feeling  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Parthian  empire. 
They  naturally  preferred  the  latter  course,  and  substituted 


and  Tiridates  from  the  Achaemenean  king  Artaxerxes  II.  But  this  has 
evidently  no  historical  foundation  This  historian  is  no  doubt  right,  if  he 
means  that  this  tradition  is  without  historical  foundation.  But  there  can 
be  scarcely  any  doubt  that  the  Arsacids  did  claim  to  be  the  lineal  descendants 
of  Artaxerxes  II.  Arrian  certainly  did  not  invent  this  tradition.’  It  would 
have  been  without  historical  analogy,  if  they  had  not  claimed  to  be  the 
descendants  of  an  ancient  royal  family. 

See  Ed.  Meyer  (ibid.)  and  Justi,  Geschichte.,  p.  148. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  77 


in  the  Book  of  Esther,  for  the  name  of  Artaxerxes,  the 
name  of  Ahasuerus  (=  Xerxes),  which  could  be  used  with 
impunity. 

The  substitution  of  the  name  Ahasuerus  was  quite 
natural.  Besides,  the  Jews  had  no  other  choice  among  the 
names  of  Achaemenian  kings.  Those  of  Cyrus  and  Darius 
could  not  be  considered  for  this  purpose,  as  they  were 
sacred  to  the  Jews,  and  even  more  so  than  to  the  Persians. 
The  names  of  Cambyses  and  Arses  were  out  of  the  question, 
as  these  kings  did  not  rule  twelve  years.  Nevertheless, 
the  name  they  substituted  is  remarkable,  as  there  is  reason 
to  assume  that  the  proper  name  of  Artaxerxes  II  was 
Ahasuerus.  If  this  is  true,  it  is  either  a  coincidence,  or  the 
Jewish  leaders  in  the  East,  in  the  second  century  B.C.E., 
must  have  known  more  about  Persian  history  than  we  are 
willing  to  give  them  credit  for.  The  name  Artaxerxes  was 
not  a  proper  name,  but  a  title,  and  means  ‘  he  whose 
empire  is  well  fitted,  or  perfected  which  was  assumed 
by  the  kings  Artaxerxes  I,  II,  III,  on  their  accession  to 
the  throne.  From  an  astronomical  cuneiform  tablet  dated 
‘in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Arsh2i^  who  is  Artaxerxes’ 
(Ars/m  sha  Artakshatsu)  we  learn  that  the  proper  name 
of  Artaxerxes  II  was  Arshu.  This  evidently  confirms 
Deinon’s  statement  that  his  name  was  Oarses.  Plutarch, 
however,  does  not  accept  this  statement,  and  observes : 

‘  Artaxerxes  at  first  was  named  Arsicas  (or  Arsaces), 
though  Deinon  asserts  that  his  original  name  was  Oarses. 
But  though  Ctesias  has  filled  his  books  with  a  number 
of  incredible  and  extravagant  fables,  it  is  not  probable  that 

83  See  Ed.  Meyer,  Encycl.  Brit,  under  ‘Artaxerxes’,  and  Justi,  Iran. 
Namenb. 

84  Strassmeier,  in  Zeitschrift f.  Assyriologie,  VII,  p.  148. 


j8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


he  should  be  ignorant  of  the  name  of  a  king  at  whose 
court  he  lived,  in  quality  of  physician  to  him,  his  wife, 
his  mother,  and  his  children’.®'^  But  Plutarch  did  not 
know  that  both  names,  Oarses  and  Arsaces,  are  identical. 
The  name  Arshic  =  Arses  —  Oarses  =  ‘  man.’  The  suffix 
ke{ka)  is  a  Persian  hypocoristic  termination.^®  Thus  Arsaces 
(Arsicas)  is  a  hypocoristicon  of  ArsJm.  But  hypocoristic 
terminations,  as  a  rule,  are  affixed  only  to  shortened 
names.®^  What  may  have  been  the  original  compounded 
name  of  Artaxerxes  ?  The  name  Xerxes  =  Persian  Khsha- 
ydrsha  —  Babylonian  K ht-sha-ar- shu  means  ‘  a  mighty 
man,  warrior,  hero  ’.  It  was  not  a  title,  like  Artaxerxes, 
but  a  proper  name.  In  antiquity,  especially  among  the 
Aryans,  a  proper  name  was  the  expression  of  the  bearer’s 
personality.®®  The  bearer  of  a  name  ‘  Mighty  man  ’  had 
to  live  up  to  its  meaning,  and  could  not  be  a  coward. 
Both  Darius  I  and  Artaxerxes  I  gave  the  name  Khsha- 
ydrsha  to  the  legitimate  heirs  of  the  throne.  Darius  II, 
though  he  had  not  yet  been  king  at  the  birth  of  his  eldest 
son,  may  have  nevertheless  imitated  their  example  and 
named  his  first-born  son  Khshaydrsha.  But  the  first  royal 
bearer  of  this  name  was  murdered.  When  the  same  fate 
happened  to  the  second  royal  bearer  of  this  name,  it  may 
have  become  ominous.  Besides,  this  name  may  have 
become  unpleasant  to  the  ears  of  Darius  II,  who  occupied 
the  place  of  his  murdered  brother,  Xerxes  II.  Hence  Darius 

Artaxerxes^  I,  4.  Justi,  Iran.  Namenb.,  Einleitung. 

See  ibid.  It  is  quite  possible  that  in  a  later  period  the  name  Arsaces 
was  treated  like  a  regular  name  and  lost  its  hypocoristic  signification.  But 
the  fact  that  Artaxerxes  is  called  Arshii  in  the  Babylonian  document  leaves 
no  doubt  that  Arsaces  was  a  hypocoristic  formation. 

Cf.  H.  Ranke,  Die  Persomnnamen  i.  d.  Urkund.  d.  Hamnnirabi- 
dynastie,  1902,  p.  2. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  79 

may  have  shortened  his  son’s  name  Khshaydrsha  to  Arsha 
and  affixed  to  it  the  hypocoristic  termination  ke{kd).  But 
in  official  documents  this  name  was  written  without  the 
hypocoristic  suffix.®^  The  Jews  who  had  many  eunuchs 
at  the  Persian  court,  of  whom  some  appeared  to  have  been 
leaders  in  Israel,  may  have  been  better  informed  of  these 
details  than  the  Greek  classical  writers.  These  court 
stories  may  have  been  handed  down,  so  that  the  original 
name  of  Artaxerxes  II  was  still  known  in  the  second 
century  B.C.E.  and  even  later. 

Outside  of  the  Parthian  empire,  in  Syria  and  Palestine, 
the  original  name  Artaxerxes  has  been  preserved  in  the 
Book  of  Esther.  The  rabbis,  who  fixed  the  Canon,  aimed 
of  course  at  uniformity  of  the  Scriptures.  But  the  Jews 
in  the  East  could  not  accept  the  name  Artaxerxes. — And 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  fixing  of  the  Canon  was 
done  with  the  co-operation  and  approval  of  the  Eastern 
rabbis,  though  we  have  no  information  whatever  how  this 
work  was  done. — Therefore  the  Western  rabbis  had  no 
other  choice,  but  to  accept  the  reading,  Ahasuerus.  Hence 
the  Greek  version  which  undoubtedly  ante-dates  the  fixing 
of  the  Canon,^®  has  the  original  name  Artaxerxes.  But 
the  Lucianic  recension  made  towards  the  end  of  the  third 
century  C.E.  preferred  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text  and 
rendered  it  'Acrv-qpo^.  Josephus  follows  as  usual  the 

We  might  even  suggest  that  the  title  Arsaces  of  the  Parthian  rulers 
was  not  assumed  in  honour  of  the  founder  of  this  empire,  but  to  assert 
their  descent  from  Artaxerxes  whose  proper  name  was  Arsaces.  It  is 
even  possible  that  the  very  name  of  the  founder  of  the  Parthian  empire 
was  assumed  in  honour  of  his  alleged  ancestor.  The  former  ruled  only  two 
years,  and  his  dominion  was  insignificant,  as  it  was  limited  to  his  native 
land  Parthia. 

‘‘*0  Cf.  Chapter  I,  n.  9. 


8o  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Greek  Version  and  has  the  correct  name  Artaxerxes,  but 
identified  this  king  with  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.^^ 

Josephus  may  or  may  not  have  known  that  the  name  Ahasuerus  in 
the  Hebrew  text  was  due  to  ‘  the  correction  of  the  Scribes  ’  (D^IDID  PpH). 
But  this  question  is  quite  irrelevant,  as  his  chronology  of  the  Persian  period 
is  not  to  be  relied  upon.  In  presenting  Ezra  as  a  contemporary  of  Xerxes, 
Josephus  follows  neither  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Greek  text.  This  error  is  no 
doubt  due  to  his  wrong  identification  of  the  king  of  Esther  with  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus.  The  latter,  according  to  Ezra  7,  was  very  favourably  inclined 
towards  the  Jews  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign.  Therefore  it  seemed 
to  Josephus  incredible  that  the  same  king  should  have  decreed  five  years 
later  their  destruction,  and  he  concluded  that  the  king  of  Ezra  was  Xerxes. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  8l 


CHAPTER  V 


The  term  ‘Judeans’ — The  renascence  of  Israel’s  religion — National 
aspirations — The  religious  propaganda  among  the  exiles — Religious  creeds 
and  the  conduct  of  their  adherents — The  hatred  of  the  Babylonian  exiles 
towards  Babylonia — The  attitude  of  the  Judeans  in  Egypt  towards  this 
country — The  conduct  of  the  wealthy  Judeans  in  Babylonia — The  cause 
of  persecutions — The  Judeans’  attitude  towards  the  Persians — Zoroaster’S 
‘  monotheistic  ’  religion — The  characters  of  Mordecai  and  Esther— The  two 
opposing  tendencies  within  Judaism  —  Mordecai  versus  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
— The  effect  of  the  religious  persecutions — The  predicament  of  the 
Sopherim— The  omission  of  all  religious  elements  in  the  Book  of  Esther — 
The  attitude  of  the  Rabbis  towards  this  book — The  omission  of  the  names 
of  Mordecai  and  Esther  in  Sirach’s  Fathers  of  the  World. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  demonstrated  that 
the  Ahasuerus  of  the  Book  of  Esther  is  to  be  identified 
with  Artaxerxes  II.  Now  it  remains  to  prove  that  the 
main  event  of  our  story  actually  occurred  under  that  king’s 
reign.  Before,  however,  proceeding  to  deal  with  that  event, 
it  is  indispensable  to  outline  the  conditions  and  the  character 
of  the  Jews  during  the  Babylonian  captivity  and  the  Persian 
period  ;  for  the  misinterpretation  of  the  Book  of  Esther  in 
ancient  and  modern  times  is  mainly  due  to  misconception 
on  those  points.  In  the  first  place  we  have  to  investigate 
the  term  ‘Jews’  (D^TilT'). 

In  pre-exilic  times,  the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judea,  irrespective  of  their  descent,  had  been  termed  ‘  Jews  ’ 


« 


82  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


(D'Tin'').^  Even  those  who  were  worshippers  of  Baal,  Moloch, 
or  Astarte,  who  were  the  citizens  of  that  country,  were 
nevertheless  called  ‘Jews’.  This  appellation  was  used 
without  the  least  regard  to  their  beliefs.  The  practice 
of  idolatry  did  not  deprive  any  one  of  his  nationality.  On 
the  other  hand,  Gentiles  who  had  adopted  the  religion 
of  Jahveh,  but  had  not  become  inhabitants  of  Judea,  were, 
of  course,  not  called  ‘Jews’  (D'^in'),  and  still  remained 
members  of  their  own  nationality.^  Thus  the  term  ‘Jews’ 
had  not  the  least  religious  significance. 

What  were  the  criteria  of  the  Judean  nationality  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Judea  who  had  been  carried  into  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  or  had  migrated  to  Egypt?  The 
Hebrew  language  ^  and  the  national  consciousness !  But 

1  The  term  D'TliT*  (2  Kings  16.  6;  25.  25;  Jer.  32.  12,  &c.),  includes 
all  inhabitants  of  Judea,  even  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (cf.  Ges.-BuhPs  Hwh.^  p.  31 1). 

2  It  goes  without  sajdng  that  the  worship  of  Jahveh,  as  generally 
practised  by  the  people  in  the  pre-exilic  period,  was  not  restricted  to  the 
state  of  Judea,  and  thus  was  not  characteristic  of  the  inhabitants  of  this 
country.  There  were  the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  who  claimed  to  be  wor¬ 
shippers  of  Jahveh  (Ezra  4.  2).  The  name  Jau-bi’di  of  the  king  of  Hamath 
points  to  the  existence  of  that  worship  in  the  latter  country.  In  this  fact 
we  may  see  a  corroboration  of  the  reading  Joram^  the  name  of  the  son  ^ 
of  the  king  of  Hamath  (2  Sam.  8.  10),  of  which  we  find  the  variant  Hadoram 
(i  Chron.  26.  25).  The  name  Azri-jau  of  the  king  of  Ja’udi  (cf.  Winckler, 
Altorientalische  Forschungen,  I,  ‘Das  Syrische  Land  Jaudi  und  der  angebliche 
Azarja  von  Juda  ’)  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  Jahveh-worship  existed  in  the 
latter  country.  But  we  may  wonder  whether  it  is  a  mere  coincidence  that 
the  name  of  that  country  is  identical  with  that  of  Judea,  in  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions,  and  that  in  both  countries  the  Jahveh-worship  is  found. 
Who  knows  whether  there  is  not  after  all  some  ethnological  connexion 
between  these  two  countries.  For  the  legal  status  of  foreigners  among 
the  Jews  cf.  Ed.  Meyer’s  Entstehung  des  Judenthums,  pp.  227-34. 

®  Hebrew  was  still  the  national  tongue,  as  in  the  period  of  Hezekiah 
(2  Kings  18.  26),  and  had  not  yet  been  superseded  by  Aramaic,  as  we  may 
learn  from  the  words  of  Ezekiel :  ‘  For  thou  art  not  sent  to  a  people  of 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  83 


on  a  foreign  soil  these  distinctive  marks  could  not  have 
endured  for  a  long  period.  The  succeeding  generations, 
born  in  those  countries,  could  not  but  adopt  the  idiom 
of  the  population  among  whom  they  were  dwelling,  with 
whom  they  were  in  intercourse.  Their  own  national  tongue 
was  scarcely  of  any  use  in  their  daily  pursuits,  and  this  fact 
must  have  been  detrimental  to  its  preservation.  Nor  could 
the  national  consciousness  of  those  generations  survive  for 
a  long  space  of  time.  Gradually  it  must  have  evaporated. 
There  was  nothing  that  should  have  prevented  the 
descendants  of  those  captives  or  immigrants  from  being 
absorbed  in  the  nations  among  whom  they  dwelt.  Their 
assimilation  with  the  latter  seemed  to  have  been  inevitable. 

The  complete  disappearance  of  the  remnant  of  Israel 
was  averted  by  the  renascence  of  the  Religion  of  Israel. 
The  religious  ideas,  propagated  by  the  prophets  of  the 
captivity  and  a  small  number  of  zealous  Jews,  made  rapid 
progress,  not  only  among  their  own  fellow  captives  of 
Judea,  but  also  among  Gentiles.  The  result  of  that 
religious  movement  apparently  was  the  preservation  of 
the  Jewish  nationality.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  new 
principle  was  now  being  proclaimed.  This  did  not  result 
in  restoration^  but  in  reform  of  the  Jewish  nationality. 
Henceforth,  neither  descent,  nor  language,  but  religion, 
was  the  criterion  of  ‘Jews’.  However,  the  religion  the 
exilic  prophets  resurrected  could  not  be  restricted  to 
the  narrow  bounds  of  the  Jewish  nationality.  The  national 
barrier  had  to  be  removed,  and  every  one  was  invited  to 

a  strange  speech  and  of  a  hard  language,  but  to  the  house  of  Israel’ 
(Ezek.  3.  5).  Even  after  the  return  from  the  captivity,  Hebrew  continued 
to  be  the  common  language,  as  we  may  adduce  from  the  words  of  Nehemiah 
(13.  24),  that  the  offspring  of  those  who  married  non-Jewish  wives  could 
not  speak  the  Jews’  language. 


G  % 


84  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


enter  into  this  religious  union  and  was  gladly  received. 
Those  who  accepted  this  invitation,  and  entered  into  the 
Covenant  of  Israel,  became  at  the  same  time  ‘  Jews  ’  (DniiT'). 
Consequently,  the  Jewish  nationality  disappeared  from  the 
scene,  and  its  place  was  taken  by  the  Jewish  religious 
community.^  The  latter  included,  on  the  one  hand,  all 
adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion,  even  Gentiles,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  excluded  all  idolaters,  even  those  who  belonged 
to  the  Jewish  race.® 

There  were,  indeed,  Jewish  patriots  who  thought  dif¬ 
ferently.  They  saw  in  the  religious  movement  an  effective 
force  for  the  Jewish  national  resurrection,  whose  preserva¬ 
tion  could  be  effected  only  on  a  racial  basis.  These  claims 
could  not  but  deeply  hurt  the  feelings  of  the  newly- 
converted  Gentile,  who  bitterly  complained  :  ‘  The  Lord 
hath  utterly  separated  me  from  His  people’.®  But  those 
national  aspirations  were  nipped  in  the  bud  by  the  great 

^  Ed.  Meyer  {Gesck.  d.  Alt.,  Ill,  p.  183)  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion, 
but  from  a  point  of  view  which  the  present  writer  does  not  share,  in 
observing ;  ‘  The  community  is  no  longer  national,  but  had  become  a 
religious  association  which  makes  propaganda  and  enlists  adherents  among 
foreign  tribes.’  Cf.  also  his  Entstehung  d.  Jud.,  p.  233  f.  He  points  to  the 
large  number  of  proselytes  in  the  Greek  and  Roman  periods.  The  Semites 
of  the  Western  countries,  who  were  captives  like  the  Jews,  may  have 
associated  with  the  latter  rather  than  with  the  Babylonians,  and  thus  were 
easily  persuaded  to  embrace  their  creed. 

®  We  shall  see  further  below  that  the  latter  were  designated  as  *133  '33 
‘  sons  of  the  stranger 

®  Isa.  56.  3.  There  must  have  been  a  national  party  which  was  dis¬ 
satisfied  with  Ezekiel’s  declaration,  that  the  proselytes  should  become 
equal  citizens  in  the  land  restored  to  Israel,  who  said :  ‘  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  that  ye  shall  divide  it  by  lot  for  an  inheritance  unto  you,  and  to 
the  strangers  that  sojourn  among  you,  which  shall  beget  children  among 
you  :  and  they  shall  be  unto  you  as  born  in  the  country  among  the  children 
of  Israel.  They  shall  have  inheritance  among  you  among  the  tribes  of 
Israel  ’  (Ezek.  47.  22). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  85 


exilic  prophet,  the  so-called  ‘  Second  Isaiah  who  pro¬ 
claimed :  ‘Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger  which  join  them¬ 
selves  to  the  Lord  to  serve  Him,  and  to  love  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  to  be  His  servants,  every  one  who  keepeth 
the  Sabbath  from  polluting  it,  and  taketh  hold  of  my 
covenant.  Even  them  will  I  bring  to  my  holy  mountain, 
and  make  them  joyful  in  my  house  of  prayer ;  their  burnt 
offerings  and  their  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  mine 
altar ;  for  mine  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer 
for  all  people’.^  In  accordance  with  this  principle,  Jewish 
nationality  receded  into  the  background,  and  the  religion 
became  its  postulate.  The  idea  of  Jewish  nationality 
required  adherence  to  the  Jewish  religion,  not,  however, 
vice  versa.  Idolaters  of  Jewish  descent  ceased  to  be  ‘Jews  ’, 
and  Syrians,  Babylonians,  &c.,  who  accepted  the  Jewish 
religion,  became  at  the  same  time  ‘Jews’  (Q'Tin'').  The 
latter  term  lost  its  gentilic  significance  and  became  a 
religious -‘designation.  In  post-exilic  times,  the  pagans 
who  lived  among  the  Jewish  people  in  Judea,  though 
inhabitants  of  this  country,  were  never  termed  ‘Jehudim’. 
The  truth  of  this  definition  was  felt  by  the  Rabbis,  who 
expressed  this  idea  in  observing,  ‘  Everybody  who  denies 
idolatry  is  called  a  Jew’  and  further  assert  that  the 

Isa.  56.  6,  7.  Til  fs  prophet  went  still  further  than  Ezekiel.  To  him 
it  is  irrelevant  whether  the  stranger  who  worshipped  Jahveh  lived  among 
the  Jews  or  in  his  own  country.  The  house  of  God  is  the  common  property 
of  all  nations,  and  everybody  is  made  welcome  here.  There  is  only  this 
difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  the  former  are  condemned  for 
forsaking  the  God  of  their  ancestors,  while  no  blame  is  attached  to  the 
latter,  if  they  refuse  to  join  the  Lord  and  adhere  to  their  ancestral  deities. 

8  Talmud  Babli  Megillah  13  a:  niH'’  NTpJ  HTT  muyn  The 

Talmudic  expression,  however,  is  misleading.  A  gentile  denying  the 
divinity  of  idols  and  refusing  to  worship  them  does  not  become  thereby 
a  ‘Jew’.  The  Talmud  of  course  means  that  every  Israelite  who  refuses 


86  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


biblical  commandment,  *  This  is  the  ordinance  of  the  pass- 
over  :  There  shall  no  stranger  eat  thereof  \  exclusively 
refers  to  a  Jewish  idolater.®  The  latter  is  thus,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  Jewish  descent,  termed  ‘  the  son  of  a  stranger’ 
(n3j  p),  according  to  the  Rabbinic  conception.  The  same 
term  which  is  used  by  Ezekiel,  ‘  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God : 
no  stranger,  uncircumcised  in  heart,  nor  uncircumcised  in 
flesh,  shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary,  of  any  stranger  that 
is  among  the  children  of  Israel’,^®  may  have  the  same 
meaning.  We  see,  then,  that  the  appellation  ‘Jews’  (Dmrt') 
in  the  exilic  and  post- exilic  periods  was  a  purely  religious 
designation,^^  and  not  a  national  term,  like  ‘  Nazarenes  ’  for 
‘  Christians  ’  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  of  interest  to  notice 
that  niiT  is  the  only  gentilic  noun  from  which  a  verbal 
noun,  D'ln'riD  ‘becoming  Jews’,  is  derived,  but  we  nowhere 
meet  with  a  similar  derivation  from  other  gentilic  nouns, 
as  'JonN  ‘  Edomite  'tDiN  ‘  Aramean  ‘  Greek 

‘  Egyptian  &c.  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Esther  who 

to  recognize  idols,  even  a  descendant  of  any  other  tribe  and  not  of  Judah, 
is  nevertheless  called  a  ‘Judean’.  The  same  is  of  course  true  of  proselytes. 

*  See  Rashi  on  Exod.  12.  44. 

Ezek.  44.  9.  In  the  follo'wing  passages  the  prophet  excepts  the 
Levites,  though  they  had  been  idolaters.  Thus  the  former  passage  seems 
to  refer  to  Israelites,  not  to  utter  strangers. 

Cassel,  /.  c.j  p.  40,  is  the  only  commentator  who  correctly  perceived 
that  in  Esther  is  a  distinctly  religious,  not  a  national,  term.  But 

he  was  wrong  in  believing  that  the  name  ‘  Israel  ’  remained  the  ideal 
designation  characteristic  of  the  relation  of  God  to  Israel.  On  the  contrary, 
the  term  ‘Israel’  has  a  purely  national  signification,  including  even  those 
who  are  not  ‘sons  of  the  covenant’  (Dni  '^3),  according  to  the  Rabbis, 
and  as  can  be  seen  from  the  term  It  is  of  interest  to  see 

how  the  modern  commentators  contradict  themselves.  They  generally 
see  in  □’’Tin’’  a  national  term  (cf.  Siegfried,  p.  141  and  others',  and  never¬ 
theless  almost  all  of  them  entertain  no  doubt  that  the  story  of  Esther  reflects 
the  events  of  the  Maccabean  period,  though  these  events  had  a  purely 
religious  character. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  87 


used  that  derivation  knew  that  the  appellation  Jehildl  was 
a  religious  term.^^ 

The  words  of  the  Babylonian  Isaiah,  quoted  above, 
indicate  that  the  promoters  of  the  religious  movement  did 
not  content  themselves  with  the  conversion  of  their  own 
brethren,  but  became  aggressive,  and  carried  their  religious 
ideas  into  the  camps  of  the  Gentiles.  The  religious  pro¬ 
paganda,  carried  on  successfully,  produced  the  same  change 
of  conception  concerning  the  term  ‘Jews’  among  Gentiles 
as  among  the  Jews  themselves.  Seeing  people  of  non- 
Jewish  descent  embracing  the  Jewish  religion,  the  Gentiles 
used  the  term  ‘Jews’  in  a  religious  sense.  This  neither 
implied  that  an  adherent  of  the  Jewish  religion  was  of 
foreign  descent,  nor  that  the  family  of  such  a  one  belonged 
to  the  same  creed,  which  was  an  individual  belief,  regardless 
of  family,  race,  and  country. 

What  reason  may  we  advance  for  the  great  success  of 
that  religious  revival  among  the  Judean  exiles?  Did  the 
latter  attribute  their  great  miseries,  the  loss  of  their  country 
and  of  their  freedom,  to  their  evil  conduct  and  trans¬ 
gressions  against  the  God  of  their  ancestors  ?  This  may 
have  been  the  case  with  a  small  fraction  of  the  exiles. 
But  if  we  should  judge  the  reasoning  of  the  average  of  the 
Judeans  by  the  behaviour  of  their  brethren  in  Egypt, 
we  would  be  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  sufferings 
they  experienced  produced  just  the  opposite  effect,  inducing 
them  to  believe  that  their  misfortune  was  due  to  the  wrath 
of  the  gods  whose  worship  they  neglected. Shall  we 


For  the  author’s  statement  that  many  embraced  Judaism,  see  the 
discussion  of  that  subject  in  chapter  IX. 

Jer.  44.  16-19. 

11  Ed.  Meyer  {G.  A.,  HI,  p,  177)  assumes  that  the  Babylonian  Jews 


88  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


ascribe  that  success  to  the  eloquence  of  the  exilic  prophets, 
and  the  lofty  ideas  of  religion  and  morality  they  proclaimed? 
In  their  former  country  the  Judeans  had  prophets  whose 
eloquence  and  religious  ideas  were  by  no  means  inferior 
to  those  of  the  captivity,  and  yet  they  were  not  persuaded 
by  their  arguments  and  exhortations.^^ 

The  average  man  hardly  ever  judges  religious  creeds 
on  their  own  merits,  but  by  the  conduct  and  deeds  of  their 
adherents.  In  their  actions  and  behaviour  he  sees  the 

thought  differently  from  their  own  brethren  in  Egypt.  This  is  correct,  as 
we  shall  further  see.  But  he  ought  to  have  been  more  explicit  and  inform 
us  of  the  reason  why  they  did  think  differently. 

This  question  is  hardly  touched  upon  by  Ed.  Meyer,  /.  c.  He  sees 
in  the  exiled  Jews  strict  adherents  to  the  Jahvistic  religion,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  who  were  soon  lost  among  the  gentiles,  and  does  not 
give  credence  to  the  accusation  of  Ezekiel  that  they  were  idolaters,  con¬ 
sidering  chapters  XIV  and  XX  mere  fiction.  This  historical  conception 
is  decidedly  erroneous.  There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  the  Jews  who 
remained  in  Judea  continued  to  be  idolaters,  notwithstanding  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  the  Law  by  Josiah.  For  this  fact  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
eye-witness  Jeremiah  (19,  25,  32,  33,  &c.).  Those  who  were  carried  into 
captivity  could  not  have  been  different  from  those  who  were  left  behind. 
Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  select  religious  Jews  as  captives.  Those  who  were 
carried  away  belonged  to  the  partisans  of  Egypt,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  have  been  more  religious  than  the  others.  As  to  the 
chapters  dealing  with  the  idolatry  of  the  Jews  being  fictitious,  such  an 
assertion  is  rather  daring.  The  prophets  frequently  made  predictions 
which  did  not  come  true.  But  none  of  them  would  have  dared  to  make 
accusations  which  were  not  true.  Ezekiel  wrote  his  book  for  his  con¬ 
temporaries,  not  for  modern  historians.  If  he  had  accused  them  of  sins 
they  did  not  commit,  the  prophet  would  have  lost  his  reputation  for  veracity 
and  discredited  all  his  prophecies.  Ed.  Meyer  seems  to  have  overlooked 
to  whom  the  prophet  addressed  himself  in  those  chapters,  not  to  the  common 
people,  but  to  ‘  the  Elders  of  Israel  h  Most  of  the  common  people  abandoned 
idols  not  long  after  their  arrival  at  Babylon,  but  not  the  wealthy  classes, 
as  we  shall  see  further  on.  Renan  (History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  VII,  i) 
does  not  explain  how  the  anavim,  Hhe  pietists,  the  fanatics’,  became 
prominent  in  Israel.  Nor  does  Graetz,  in  his  History,  I,  p.  332,  though  his 
description  of  the  exiles  is  partly  correct. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  89 

influence  of  their  religions.  Therefore,  just  and  benevolent 
intercourse  of  members  of  a  religious  creed  with  their 
fellow-men  will  help  more  towards  disseminating  their 
belief  than  the  highest  code  of  ethics.  On  the  other  hand, 
unfair  and  malicious  dealings  of  members  of  any  creed 
will  do  more  towards  discrediting  the  latter  than  the  worst 
ethical  conceptions.  A  people,  as  a  rule,  is  favourably 
inclined  towards  the  religion  of  its  friends,  and  is  easily 
persuaded  to  follow  their  example,  but  detests  that  of  its 
enemies,  without  investigating  which  of  the  two  religions 
is  of  higher  quality.  This  may  be  the  reason  why  the 
Israelites,  during  the  period  of  the  Judges,  were  willing  to 
imitate  the  idolatrous  worship  of  their  friendly  neighbours, 
but  always  turned  back  to  the  God  of  their  ancestors  when 
oppressed  by  them.^®  This  repentance  may  have  been 
a  purely  psychological  process,  and  not  the  effect  of 
religious  convictions.  The  modern  scholars  who  contend 
that  the  Mosaic  Code  contains  numerous  Babylonian  rites 
and  myths,  taken  over  in  the  exilic  period,  leave  out  of 
consideration  the  character  of  the  Jews.  The  latter  have 
been  living  among  Christian  nations  for  the  last  sixteen 
hundred  years.  And  yet  we  do  not  find  any  rite  or  custom 
the  Jews  adopted  from  their  Christian  neighbours  during 
this  long  period.  This  remarkable  phenomenon  is  by  no 
means  due  to  the  rigidity  of  the  Jewish  religion.  In  modern 
times,  in  liberal  countries,  where  Jews  are  treated  more  or 
less  fairly,  many  have  abandoned  ritual  laws  of  the  Bible 
and  Talmud,  and  have  even  adopted  Christian  customs. 
The  Spanish  Jewish  preachers,  six  hundred  years  ago,  who 
considered  the  stories  of  Genesis  pure  mythology,  and  saw 
in  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Twelve  Tribes  personifications 

See  Judges  3-13. 


90  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


of  the  planets  and  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac, were  quite 
capable  of  changing  the  Jewish  religion  in  the  most  radical 
manner,  but  for  the  persecutions  the  Christians  continually 
inflicted  upon  the  Jews.  In  paraphrasing  a  Talmudic 
saying,  we  may  venture  the  paradoxical  statement :  The 
Christians  did  more  for  the  preservation  of  the  Jewish 
religion  by  their  persecutions,  than  did  the  Prophets  and 
the  Talmudic  literature.^^  The  same,  of  course,  holds  true 
of  the  Mohammedans.  The  Bible  undoubtedly  contains 
many  ideas  similar  to  or  identical  with  those  of  the 
Babylonians.  If  they  originated  in  Babylonia,  they  must 
have  been  transmitted  to  the  Jews  in  a  very  early  period,^^ 
not  at  a  time  when  the  Jews  suffered  under  the  heavy  yoke 
of  that  empire.^^ 

See  the  Responses  of  nmX  p  'ni,  No.  415. 

The  Talmud  observes  :  ‘  The  seal-ring  which  Ahasuerus  gave  to 
Haman  effected  a  greater  success  than  the  forty-eight  prophets  who  rose 
in  Israel :  it  did  what  none  of  them  was  able  to  do,  to  cause  them  to  repent 
of  their  sins  Megillah  12  b. 

In  the  present  writer’s  opinion,  the  transmission  to  Israel  of  ideas 
developed  in  the  Euphrates  Valley  dates  back  to  a  pre-Mosaic  period 
(cf.  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  New  Series,  vol.  I,  pp.  147  if.).  Of  the  same 
opinion  is  also  Jastrow,  in  his  recent  work,  Hebrew  and  Babylonian 
Traditions,  New  York,  1914,  p  4.  Albert  T.  Clay  takes  a  different  position, 
in  his  work  Amurru,  Philadelphia,  1909,  and  contends  that  the  Babylonian 
religious  conceptions  developed  mainly  in  the  Westland,  the  home  of  Israel. 

Renan  (History,  VI,  i)  remarks  :  ‘  It  is  our  opinion  that  the  pious 
Jews  who  were  captives  in  Babylonia  wilfully  closed  their  eyes  to  all  that 
surrounded  them,  like  Bretons  transplanted  to  Paris  who  will  not  look 
at  anything  and  depreciate  all  that  passes  under  their  eyes.’  The  analogy 
is  rather  incorrect.  Paris  did  not  destroy  Bretagne,  and  thus  the  Bretons 
have  no  reason  to  detest  the  former  city,  and  merely  look  down  contemp¬ 
tuously  upon  this  state  of  luxury.  The  Judeans,  however,  had  ample 
reason  to  abominate  Babylonia,  even  these  who  were  not  pious.  Jastrow, 
in  the  work  cited  above  (see  preceding  note),  correctly  observes  that  the 
Hebrews  were  in  no  mood  to  assimilate  ideas  from  those  who  appeared  to 
them  in  the  light  of  ruthless  destroyers. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  gl 


The  Judeans  led  into  captivity  to  Babylonia  naturally 
hated  intensely  the  people  which  had  deprived  them  of 
their  liberty.  Their  conqueror,  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  by  no 
means  a  cruel  monarch.  He  was  a  generous  robber,  and  had 
no  desire  to  destroy  his  victims  utterly.  Though  depriving 
the  exiles  of  their  possessions  and  their  freedom,  he  gave 
them  means  of  subsistence  in  his  native  land.  The  prophets 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  seeing  in  this  king  the  instrument 
of  Jahveh’s  judgement,  were  grateful  to  him  for  his  gentle 
treatment  of  the  exiles,  and  even  represented  him  as  the 
‘servant  of  Jahveh’.  But  the  victims  themselves  thought 
differently  on  this  point.  Little  did  they  care  whether  he 
was  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  Jahveh  for  the  execution 
of  his  judgement.  They  saw  in  him  only  the  merciless 
destroyer  of  their  happiness,  and  thus  detested  and  cursed 
this  king,  his  country,  his  people,  and  all  their  institutions. 

The  exiles  were  addicted  to  idolatrous  practices  in  their 
own  country.  Their  local  gods  having,  according  to  the 
common  conceptions,^^  no  power  outside  of  their  own 


Such  a  conception  was  generally  shared  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike. 
David  complained  to  Saul  :  ‘  They  have  driven  me  out  this  day  from  abiding 
in  the  inheritance  of  the  Lord,  saying:  Go,  serve  other  gods  ’  (i  Sam.  26. 19). 
The  colonists  transplanted  by  the  Assju'ians  to  Palestine  found  that  their 
own  gods  were  powerless  to  protect  them  against  the  lions,  until  they 
placed  themselves  under  the  protection  of  Jahveh,  and  only  then  were  able 
to  worship  their  ancestral  gods,  who  became  now  the  manifestations  and 
ministers  of  Jahveh,  ‘they  feared  the  Lord  and  served  their  own  gods’ 
(2  Kings  17.  25-33).  The  Assyrians  frequently  carried  their  captives  and 
their  gods  to  Assyria,  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  latter  of  their  power 
to  avenge  the  harm  done  to  their  votaries.  In  Assyria  the  foreign  gods 
became  subject  to  the  will  of  the  indigenous  gods,  and  had  to  punish  their 
own  votaries  if  they  were  not  faithful  to  their  masters.  The  Bible  expresses 
the  same  idea  :  'The  Lord  shall  bring  thee  .  .  .  unto  a  nation  which  neither 
thou  nor  thy  father  have  known  ;  and  there  shalt  thou  serve  other  gods, 
wood  and  stone’  (Deut,  28.  36).  Jahveh,  having  no  representation,  could 


92  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


dominions,  were  of  no  use  to  them  in  a  foreign  country. 
The  same  conception  prevailed  even  among  those  who 
were  worshippers  of  Jahveh,  that  He  was  powerless  to 
assist  His  votaries  outside  of  Palestine.  Now  the  Baalim 
and  Astartes  they  had  worshipped  were  essentially  and  by 
origin  identical  with  many  gods  of  the  Euphrates  valley, 
and  the  exiles  could  easily  have  substituted  the  latter  for 
the  former  deities.  And  even  the  worship  of  Jahveh  could 
have  been  preserved  on  this  foreign  soil  by  identifying  him 
with  one  of  the  chief  Babylonian  divinities  of  West  Semitic 
origin,  like  Adad  or  Marduk.  But  how  could  they  be 
expected  to  recognize  the  very  gods  to  whom  their  mortal 
enemies  attributed  the  victory  over  them?  It  was  quite 
natural  that  the  captives  who  could  not  reconcile  themselves 
to  the  new  conditions,  and  deeply  felt  the  misery  of  the 
captivity,  detested  and  refused  to  worship  the  gods  of  their 
conquerors. Not  being  able  to  preserve  their  old  religious 
practices,  and  riot  willing  to  put  themselves  under  the 
protection  of  the  gods  of  their  enemies,  the  captives  were 
practically  without  any  religion.  There  was  a  void  in  their 
heart,  and  they  felt  themselves  forsaken  by  god  and  man. 

Under  those  circumstances,  the  prophets  found  it  easy 
to  disseminate  the  old  religion  of  Israel,  as  the  soil  was  well 
prepared.  The  religion  whose  laws  awakened  memories 

not  be  carried  into  captivity,  and  his  worshippers  would  have  to  serve  there 
other  gods.  It  was  due  to  the  prophetic  idea  of  the  Omnipresence  of 
Jahveh  that  the  Jewish  belief  lost  its  local  character,  and  could  be 
established  everywhere.  Nevertheless,  the  idea  of  Galuth  ha-Shekinah^ 
that  the  Lord  abides  with  his  people  in  the  captivity  and  is  powerless  to 
redeem  them,  has  still  survived  in  the  Talmudic  and  Cabbalistic  literature. 
It  would  lead  us  too  far  to  dwell  upon  it. 

Renan,  /.c.,  failed  to  see  that  the  idolatrous  Jews  had  more  reason 
to  detest  Babylonia  than  those  who  were  pious.  The  latter  may  have  seen 
in  their  miseries  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  while  the  former  did  not. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  93 

and  aspirations  immensely  dear  to  their  hearts  was  en¬ 
thusiastically  accepted  by  the  people.  The  change  in  their 
religious  conceptions  was  effected  in  a  short  time.  Not 
long  after  the  first  exile  Jeremiah  could  already  contrast 
the  religious  conduct  of  the  Babylonian  exiles  with  that 
of  those  who  were  left  behind  in  J  udea,  in  the  parable  of 
the  ‘two  baskets  of  figs’.^^  The  Judeans  in  the  old 
country  still  continued  the  practice  of  idolatry.  But  as 
soon  as  they  came  to  Babylonia,  after  the  complete 
destruction  of  Judea,  most  of  them  imitated  the  example 
of  their  fellow  captives  and  accepted  the  religion  of  Jahveh. 
They  had  even  more  cause  for  detesting  the  Babylonians 
and  their  deities  than  the  first  exiles. 

The  condition  of  the  Jews  who  migrated  to  Egypt  was 
different  from  that  of  the  Babylonian  captives.  Egypt 
had  done  no  harm  to  Judea.  Though  the  latter  suffered 
a  terrible  defeat,  twenty  years  before  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple,  at  the  hands  of  the  Egyptians  at  Megiddo,^^ 
Egypt  was  not  responsible  for  this  calamity.  It  was  due 
to  the  presumption  and  short-sightedness  of  the  Judean 
government.  Being  assured  that  the  king  of  Egypt 


Jer.  24.  3.  The  same  is  seen  from  the  letter  sent  to  the  captives 
(29.  1-32).  But  not  all  of  them  had  at  that  time  abandoned  idolatry  (see 
n.  15). 


We  may  assume  that  the  captives  at  the  final  destruction  of  Judea, 
who  had  proved  themselves  faithless  to  the  Babylonian  in  their  covenant 
with  the  Babylonian  king,  were  not  treated  with  some  consideration  as 
were  those  who  were  exiled  with  Jehoiachin.  This  may  perhaps  be  the 
reason  why  the  last  chapters  of  Jeremiah  show  such  a  deep-rooted  hatred 
toward  Babylonia,  and  so  strangely  contrast  with  the  sentiments  of  this 
prophet  toward  the  Babylonian  empire.  Jeremiah  may  have  learned  in 
Egypt  of  the  sufferings  of  those  exiles  at  the  hands  of  the  Babylonians, 
and  thus  his  sentiments  toward  them  naturally  changed. 

2<>  2  Kings  23.  29  ;  2  Chron.  35.  20-24.  Cf.  Graetz,  ///s/.,  p.  296  f. 


2 


94  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


had  no  hostile  intentions  against  Judea,  Josiah  had  no 
reason  to  prevent  the  passing  of  the  Egyptian  army  through 
his  borderland  to  Syria.  At  the  time  of  Judea’s  final 
destruction  and  conquest  by  Babylonia,  the  Egyptians  were 
the  allies  of  that  country  and  made  an  attempt  to  come 
to  its  rescue.*^®  The  Judean  immigrants  expected  to  find 
a  safe  refuge  in  the  land  of  their  former  allies,  were  no 
doubt  received  in  a  friendly  way  by  the  Egyptians,  and 
accordingly  felt  a  deep  gratitude  towards  their  kind  hosts. 

‘  The  Queen  of  Heaven’,  to  whom  the  immigrants  sacrificed, 
was  an  Egyptian  goddess  whose  cult  had  been  introduced 
into  Judea  long  before  the  reform  of  Josiah.^^  Thus  the 
immigrants  had  not  the  least  reason  for  abandoning 
the  worship  of  this  goddess,  since  they  believed  that  her 
wrath  for  having  been  formerly  abandoned  by  Them  was 
the  cause  of  their  present  condition.  We  do  not  know 
whether  at  that  time  the  Jahveh-cult  was  given  up  altogether. 
It  is  more  probable  that  along  with  the  worship  of  Jahveh 
the  Egyptian  Jews  practised  idolatry,  as  they  formerly  did 
in  Judea.  But  after  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  Cambyses, 
the  intercourse  of  the  Egyptian  Jews  with  their  Babylonian 

Jer.  37.  5,  6-1 1. 

2'^  Graetz,  Hist.  I,  p.  300,  asserts  that  the  worship  of  the  ‘  Queen  of 
Heaven’  was  introduced  after  the  battle  of  Megiddo.  The  improbability 
of  such  an  opinion  is  evident,  as  the  Jews  would  never  have  accepted 
voluntarily  the  cult  of  a  people  at  whose  hands  they  suffered  a  terrible 
defeat  and  to  whom  they  had  to  pay  a  heavy  indemnity.  Moreover,  the 
words  of  the  immigrants  :  ‘  But  we  will  certainly  do  whatsoever  goeth 
forth  of  our  own  mouth,  to  burn  incense  to  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  as  we 
have  done,  we  and  our  fathers,  our  kings  and  princes,  in  the  cities  of 
Judah’  (Jer.  44.  17),  prove  that  her  cult  in  Judah  must  have  dated  from 
an  earlier  period.  The  Egyptians  were  continually  on  friendly  terms  with 
Israel  and  Judea  and  the  other  Western  states,  since  the  Assyrians  started 
their  conquests  in  the  West,  and  the  Judeans  may  have  adopted  the  cult  of 
the  goddess  at  that  period. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  95 


brethren  was  not  without  influence,  and  many  of  them  may 
have  become  pure  worshippers  of  Jahveh.^® 

As  a  rule,  religion  plays  a  minor,  not  to  say  an  in¬ 
significant  part,  in  the  affairs  of  those  who  live  in  affluence. 
The  religious  propaganda  was  successful  among  the  poor 
and  middle  classes  of  the  Judean  captives.  The  nobles, 
however,  who  exercised  a  certain  authority  over  their  poor 
brethren,^^  were  soon  reconciled  to  the  exilic  conditions. 
Having  been  the  leaders  of  the  people,  they  came  in  contact 
with  the  government  officials,  and  entertained  friendly 
relations  with  many  Babylonians.  Out  of  deference  to  the 
latter,  and  in  order  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  them, 
these  nobles  were  quite  willing  to  pay  their  respects  to  the 
Babylonian  deities.  There  were  others  who  became  pros¬ 
perous  by  commerce,  and  were  quite  contented  with  their 
present  conditions  in  the  great  Babylonian  metropolis, 
where  they  found  more  opportunities  for  accumulating 
riches  than  in  their  former  agricultural  country.  Being 
satisfied  with  their  new  surroundings,  they  had  no  ill  will 
towards  the  king  and  the  people  who  transplanted  them 
to  Babylonia,  and  thus  no  reason  for  refusing  to  worship 
the  gods  of  this  country.  Those  Jews,  though  representing 
a  small  portion  of  the  captives,  were,  on  account  of  their 
influence,  a  constant  menace  to  the  religious  movement. 
The  activity  of  the  prophets  was  directed  against  them. 


28  But  the  Elephantine  Papyri  (published  by  Sachau,  Leipzig,  1911) 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  Egyptian  Jews  were  not  pure  worshippers  of 
Jahveh  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  b.  c.e.  There  may,  however,  have 
been  a  number  who  accepted  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  Babylonian 
Jews,  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple  of  Jeb  was  not  recognized  by  them. 

29  See  Ezek.  34.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  ‘shepherds’  were 
the  leaders  of  the  Jews  in  the  captivity.  Cf.  Graetz,  /.  c.,  p.  332,  and 
Renan,  /.  c.  VI,  i. 


96  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

However,  they  had  little  regard  for  the  prophets,  and 
ridiculed  their  prophecies.^®  ‘  The  elders  of  Israel  ’  fre¬ 
quently  visited  Ezekiel,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  listening 
to  his  teachings.®^  The  prophet  being  respected,  and 
enjoying  the  highest  authority  among  the  common  people, 
it  was  a  matter  of  policy  to  occasionally  ask  his  advice, 
in  order  to  give  to  their  measures  divine  sanction.^^  Hypo¬ 
critically  they  asked  for  a  divine  message.  But  he  was 
well  acquainted  with  their  conduct,  and  they  could  not 
deceive  him.  ‘  What  do  you  idolaters  care  for  God  and 
His  messages?’  was  his  reply.  Whenever  he  addressed 
the  elders  of  Israel  he  accused  them  of  idolatry. To  the 
common  people,  however,  he  spoke  in  a  different  tone, 
comforting  them  and  correcting  their  religious  conceptions.^^ 
As  long  as  the  influential  men  among  the  captives  were 
not  won  over  to  the  religious  party,  the  existence  of  the 
Jewish  religion  was  precarious. 

The  religious  propaganda  could  not  be  carried  on 
secretly.  The  publicity  which  it  aroused  could  not  fail 
to  engender  bad  feeling  among  the  Babylonians.  Com¬ 
batting  and  deriding  idolatrous  conceptions  in  the  very 
centre  of  the  Babylonian  cult  was  nothing  short  of  high 
treason. Such  a  movement  was  undoubtedly  the  cause 

30  Ezek,  21.  5. 

31  If  the  elders  of  Israel  practised  idolatry,  we  cannot  assume  that 
they  were  in  earnest  in  visiting  the  prophet  and  listening  to  his  admoni¬ 
tions. 

32  A  similar  condition  is  not  totally  unknown  at  the  present  time,  that 
wealthy  men  of  influence  stand  at  the  head  of  communities  and  consult  the 
Rabbis  upon  the  religious  work  of  the  congregations  though  these  leaders 
themselves  may  be  totally  indifferent  to  religion, 

33  Ezek.  14,  20. 

s<  Ibid.  18,  33,  34,  36,  37,  38.  25-9. 

33  It  is  inconceivable  how  Renan  {History,  VI,  1)  came  upon  the  idea 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  97 

of  numerous  persecutions,^®  which,  however,  had  no  dis¬ 
couraging  effect  upon  the  zeal  of  the  pious  Jews.  On  the 
contrary,  even  those  who  had  held  aloof  from  the  religious 
movement  could  not  remain  unaffected  by  the  sufferings 
of  their  brethren.  It  is  easy  to  sneer  at  religious  ideas, 
but  they  assume  a  different  aspect  when  one  sees  men 
willing  to  pay  for  them  with  their  lives.  However,  this 
sympathy  did  not  have  an  immediate  effect.  Those  wealthy 
Jews  preferred  their  own  comfort  above  everything,  and 
were  not  inclined  to  expose  themselves  to  persecutions  by 
abandoning  idolatrous  practices.  They  were  not  of  the 
stuff  of  which  martyrs  are  made. 

The  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  dealt  a  death-blow 
to  the  Babylonian  religion.  The  superstitious  belief  in 
Bel’s  power  was  shattered.  Idolatry,  though  still  tolerated, 
was  no  longer  fashionable.  The  seeds  of  the  Jewish  religion 
now  found  a  fruitful  soil  even  in  the  hearts  of  the  wealthy 
people,  who  gave  up  idolatry  and  joined  the  Jewish 
community.  Nevertheless  they  still  remained  indifferent 
members,  without  high  regard  for  the  observances  of 
the  Jewish  laws.  They  were  the  people  of  whom  the 
Babylonian  Isaiah  said :  ‘  They  who  are  eating  swine’s 

that  the  Babylonians  at  that  period  denied  both  the  gods  and  Providence- 
The  Babylonians  were  certainly  at  that  period  just  as  religious  as  ever. 

36  Graetz  {History^  I,  p.  334)  states  that  the  violent  hatred  of  the  Jews  . 
toward  Babylonia  was  caused  by  Nabunaid’s  refusal  to  grant  them  per¬ 
mission  to  return  to  their  own  country.  But  the  letter  of  Jeremiah  stated 
that  they  had  to  remain  in  the  captivity  seventy  years  (29,  10).  The  pious 
Jews  were  firm  believers  in  the  prophetic  prediction,  and  thus  did  not 
cherish  any  hope  of  an  earlier  return.  The  indifferent  Jews  felt  comfortable 
in  that  country,  and  were  not  eager  to  leave  it.  Even  if  we  should  see  in 
that  prediction  a  later  interpolation,  we  have  not  the  least  evidence  for 
an  assumption  that  Nabunaid  had  been  kindly  disposed  towards  the  captives 
on  his  accession  to  the  throne,  and  later  changed  his  mind. 


II. 


II 


98  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


flesh,  and  broth  of  abominated  things  is  in  their 
vessels.’ 

If  the  Jews  detested  the  Babylonian  religion  as  being 
the  creed  of  their  oppressors,  it  stands  to  reason  that  they 
loved  the  Persian  religion  as  being  that  of  their  liberators. 
This  love  would  have  been  disastrous  to  the  establishment 
of  the  Jewish  religion  if  the  Persians  had  been  idolaters. 
The  mere  fact  that  the  Persian  religion  did  not  do  much 
harm  to  the  Jewish  religious  conceptions  is  in  itself  a 
sufficient  proof  that  there  were  no  great  differences  between 
the  principal  doctrines  of  both  the  Jewish  and  Persian 
religions. 

Ahuramazda  was  a  purely  spiritual  god,  not  represented 
by  any  image,  according  to  the  Ayesta.  His  emblem, 
adopted  by  the  Iranians  from  the  Assyrians,^*  consisting 
of  a  winged  ring  floating  in  the  air  with  a  human  figure 
rising  from  the  circular  space,  was  not  considered  an  idol.^^ 

Isa.  65.  4.  This  accusation  does  not  refer  to  those  who  practised 
idolatry.  No  prophet  would  have  blamed  idolaters  for  not  observing  the 
dietary  laws.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  latter  had  observed  them,  the  pro¬ 
phets  would  have  ridiculed  their  conduct.  The  prophet  in  those  passages 
describes  different  kinds  of  Jewish  transgressors  ;  some  were  real  idolaters, 
sacrificing  in  gardens  and  burning  incense  upon  altars  of  brick  ;  others 
were  superstitious,  remaining  among  the  graves  and  lodging  in  the  monu¬ 
ments,  and  practised  necromancy  ;  and  others  finally  had  already  abandoned 
all  those  practices,  but  still  continued  to  eat  swine’s  flesh. 

This  was  the  emblem  of  the  Assyrian  god  Ashur  (see  ]usi\,  Histttry, 
p.  69,  and  Ed.  Meyer,  G.A.,  III,  p.  123).  If  Zoroastrianism  dates  from 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  we  must  assume  that  the  adopting  of 
this  emblem  was  pre-Zoroastrian,  and  that  Zoroaster  did  not  consider  it 
an  idolatrous  representation. 

See  Ed.  Meyer,  ibid.  Justi,  however,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
religion  of  the  Achaeamenides  was  not  identical  with  that  of  the  Avesta, 
as  the  latter  prohibits  the  representation  of  Ahuramazda  by  an  image.  But 
then  he  would  have  to  go  a  step  further  and  maintain  that  the  religion 
of  the  Sassanides,  the  most  fanatical  adherents  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  99 

The  essential  part  of  this  emblem  was  the  winged  ring  and 
not  the  human  figure,  as  this  emblem  was  represented 
frequently  without  the  latter. This  divinity  was  not  the 
supreme  god  of  the  Persians,  but  actually  the  only  one. 
The  Daevas,  the  gods  of  the  popular  belief,  were,  according 
to  the  teaching  of  Zoroaster,  to  be  regarded  as  spurious 
deities,  and  their  priests  and  votaries  as  heretics.^^  The 
angels,  by  whom  Ahuramazda  was  surrounded,  originally 
represented  abstract  ideas.^^  However,  at  a  later  period, 
when  the  Zoroastrian  religion  became  corrupt,  they  assumed 
the  character  of  the  former  Daevas.''^  The  power  of 
Ahuramazda,  the  god  of  light,  having  continually  to  strive 

under  whose  rule  the  Avesta  was  compiled,  was  not  identical  with  that 
of  the  Avesta  either,  as  the  Sassanides  represented  Ahuramazda  in  human 
shape.  Thus  we  cannot  but  assume  that  the  Persians  did  not  look  upon 
these  figures  as  representations. 

Cf.  George  Rawlinson,  Herodotus^  vol.  I,  p.  208,  n.  3.  That  this 
symbol  was  not  regarded  as  an  image  is  seen  from  Berossus  who  was  no 
doubt  well  acquainted  with  the  Persian  religion,  and  nevertheless  asserts 
that  the  Persians  knew  of  no  images  of  the  gods  before  Arlaxerxes  II  (see 
chapter  VI). 

See  K.  F.  Geldner’s  article  ‘Zoroaster’  in  the  Enc.  Brit.  J.  Darme- 
steter  (^Zend-Avesta,  p.  59)  observes  that  Mazdeism  struggled  on  towards 
unity  :  the  Lord  (Ahura)  slowly  brought  everything  under  his  unquestioned 
supremacy,  and  the  other  gods  became  not  only  his  subjects,  but  his 
creatures.  Justi,  in  his  History,  remarks:  ‘All  these  things  have  in 
Zoroastrianism  an  essentially  different  position  than  in  the  natural  religion. 
They  have  given  up  their  character  as  gods,  and  preserved  only  their 
cosmic  sphere  of  action.  They  are  creatures  and  servants  of  the  supreme 
god  ’  (p.  82). 

Cf.  Geldner,  1.  c.  Darmesteter,  /,  c.,  p;  71,  observes  :  ‘  They  were  at 
first  mere  personifications  of  virtue  and  moral  or  liturgical  powers  ;  but 
as  their  lord  and  father  ruled  over  the  whole  world,  they  each  took  by  and 
by  a  part  of  the  world  under  their  care.’ 

In  Armenia,  at  least,  some  of  the  Amshaspands  possessed  their  own 
sanctuaries;  cf.  the  article  ‘Armenia’  (Zoroastrian)  by  H.  M.  Ananikian, 
in  Hastings’s  Encyclop.  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  and  Ed.  Meyer,  G.A.-,  Ill, 
p.  127  f. 


H  a 


lOO  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


with  Anra-Mainyu,  the  god  of  darkness,  was  seemingly 
limited.  Notwithstanding  this  conception,  he  was,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  the  only  god.  .  The  conception  of 
the  power  of  darkness  in  the  Zoroastrian  religion  corre¬ 
sponds  to  that  of  the  spiritual  enemy  of  mankind,  the 
Evil  One,  in  the  Christian  religion,  who  is  feared,  but  not 
worshipped.^^  The  term  dualism  applied  to  the  Persian 
religion  is  a  misnomer.  The  two  opposing  forces  of  light 
and  darkness  represent  the  principles  of  good  and  evil. 
There  is  no  good  without  its  counterpart,  evil.  The  latter 
being  the  destructive  element  in  nature,  it  is  reasonable 
that  man  should  place  himself  under  the  protection  of  the 
good,  constructive  principle.  Ahuramazda  himself  was 
originally,  to  a  certain  extent,  placed  above  these  opposing 
forces,  as  has  been  pointed  out.^^  In  a  later  period,  however, 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  made  equivalent  to  hirn.^®  This  would 

Herodotus  VII,  114  seems  to  contradict  that  assumption,  as  he  tells 
us  :  ‘I  have  heard  that  Amestris,  the  wife  of  Xerxes,  in  her  old  age,  buried 
alive  seven  pairs  of  Persian  youths,  sons  of  illustrious  men,  as  a  thanks- 
offering  to  the  god  who  is  supposed  to  dwell  underneath  the  earth.’  But 
Zoroastrianism  is  just  as  little  responsible  for  the  superstition  of  Amestris 
as  Christianity  for  some  mad  witches  who  worshipped  the  devil.  George 
Rawlinson  {ibid.,  vol.  IV,  p.  8)  holds  as  probable  that  Herodotus  merely 
speaks  as  a  Greek.  In  the  Avesta  there  is  no  vestige  of  such  a  cult.  That 
god  Anra-mainyu,  being  the  personification  of  the  evil  principle,  was 
naturally  unlike  any  other  deity  that  could  be  propitiated  by  sacrifices. 
Justi,  in  his  History,  observes:  ‘If  the  ancient  writers  inform  us  that  the 
Persians  sacrificed  to  Hades,  we  may  recognize  therein  a  feature  of  the 
Median  religion  of  the  Magians  ’  (p.  83).  The  latter  religion,  however,  was 
not  identical  with  that  of  Ahuramazda,  but  represents  the  old  Iranian  belief. 

A  similar  opinion  is  expressed  by  Darmesteter,  /.  c.,  p.  82  :  ‘  When 
the  Magi  had  accounted  for  the  existence  of  evil  by  the  existence  of  two 
principles,  there  arose  the  question  how  there  could  be  two  principles,  and 
a  longing  for  unity  was  felt,  which  found  its  satisfaction  that  both  are 
derived  from  the  same  principle.’ 

Cf.  Geldner’s  ‘Zoroaster’,  Encycl.  Brit.,  and  Justi’s  Hist.,  p.  83. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  lOI 


account  for  the  fact  that  Darius,  in  his  Behistun  Inscription, 
does  not  mention  Anra-Mainyu.^^  Besides,  the  limitation 
of  Ahuramazda’s  power  was  held  to  be  merely  temporary, 
as  he  was  bound  after  a  certain  period  to  be  victorious, 
and  destroy  his  enemy.^® 

To  scholarly  minds  there  might  have  been  great 
differences  between  the  Jewish  and  Persian  conceptions 
concerning  the  Divine  Nature.  However,  to  the  average 
man,  Jahveh  and  Ahuramazda  were  identical  in  all  respects 
but  in  name.^^  The  Persian  religion  having  no  images,  ^ 
no  temples,  and  no  altars,^^’  the  Jews  did  not  see  any 
transgression  in  acknowledging  Ahuramazda  as  God,  and 
identifying  him  with  Jahveh.^^  We  may  assume  that  they 

It  has  been  contended  that  Darius  did  not  know  anything  about 
Zoroaster,  since  he  does  not  mention  Anra-Mainyu  in  his  Behistun  in¬ 
scription. 

Geldner,  1.  c.,  and  Justi,  /.  c.,  p.  83. 

Graetz  {History,  I,  p.  402)  is  certainly  correct  in  his  remark :  ‘  They 
contrasted  that  doctrine  with  their  own  belief  that  the  God  of  Israel  created 
light  and  darkness,  good  and  evil.’  A  similar  opinion  is  expressed  by 
Alfred  Jeremias  {The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  East,  II, 
p.  276):  ‘The  assumption  that  the  prophet  (Isa.  45.  7,  12)  combats  the 
theology  of  Zarathustra,  at  least  in  its  exoteric  interpretation,  is  well 
founded.’  He  further  observes  (n.  2)  :  ‘The  esoteric  religion  of  Zarathustra 
is  not  dualistic  in  the  proper  sense.’  Bat  the  contrary  may  be  true. 
Zoroaster’s  esoteric  religion  was  dualistic,  and  the  prophet  called  attention 
just  to  this  fundamental  principle  which  the  common  people  did  not  perceive. 
But  so  subtle  a  distinction  could  scarcely  have  made  any  impression  upon 
the  average  Jew.  Moreover,  it  was  no  easy  task  to  convince  the  people 
that  God  himself  was  the  creator  of  evil.  The  very  idea  of  the  prophet 
that  God  created  the  darkness  evidently  contrasted  with  the  story  of 
Creation  in  which  the  first  divine  act  was  the  creation  of  light. 

Herodotus  I,  131. 

It  looks  as  if  the  Persians  themselves  saw  in  Jahveh  their  own  God 
Ahuramazda  under  a  different  name.  Marquart  {Fundamente,  p.  49)  indeed 
contends  that  ‘the  God  of  Heaven’  (Ezra  7.  12,  21,  23)  is  Ahuramazda. 
This  conjecture  is  not  without  foundation.  The  edict  of  Artaxerxes,  in 
which  enormous  powers  are  conferred  upon  a  Jewish  priest,  even  to  impose 


102  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


did  not  fail,  whenever  there  was  an  opportunity,  to  impress 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Persian  officials  the  close  relationship 
of  their  own  religion  to  that  of  the  Persians,  and  thus  justly 
claim  special  favours. 

During  the  Babylonian  period,  the  distinctive  mark  of 
‘Jews*  (D''1VT)  was  the  rejection  of  idols.  Under  Persian 
rule,  however,  this  fact  ceased  to  be  the  criterion  of  the  latter, 
as  the  true  Zoroastrians  did  the  same.  Zoroastrianism 
having  adherents  everywhere  throughout  the  Persian  empire, 
a  Jew,  not  caring  to  reveal  his  identity,  could  live  among 
Gentiles  all  his  lifetime  without  being  recognized  as  an 
adherent  of  the  Jewish  religion.  A  strictly  pious  Jew  could 


the  death  penalty  upon  those  who  disobey  the  Jewish  Law,  is  quite 
incomprehensible.  The  Persian  rulers  were  very  tolerant  towards  the 
creeds  of  their  subjects.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  granting  the  Jews 
permission  to  return  to  their  old  home,  to  rebuild  the  Temple  and  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem,  and  to  live  according  to  their  own  laws.  But  it  is  rather 
strange  that  a  Persian  king  should  have  been  so  solicitous  about  the 
promulgation  of  the  Jewish  Law  as  to  impose  it  by  force  upon  those  who 
had  no  inclination  to  accept  it.  Hence  it  is  no  surprise  to  find  that  the 
authenticity  of  that  edict  is  denied  by  Kuenen  {Hist.-krit.  EinleUungj  I, 
p.  165),  Kosters  {Het  Hersiel  van  Israel^  1903,  p.  114),  Wellhausen  (Israel, 
und jiid.  Geschichte,  1914,  p.  160),  Th.  Noldeke  (Golt.  Gel.  Anz.,  1884,  1014), 
and  others,  Ed.  Meyer  (Entst.  d.  Jud.,  p.  60  f.),  however,  has  clearly 
demonstrated  that  this  document  is  absolutely  genuine.  But  his  explanation 
that  Artaxerxes  was  superstitious,  and  that  the  promulgation  of  the  Law 
had  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  government  is  very  forced.  There  is  no 
parallel  between  favours  granted  to  the  Greeks  in  religious  matters  and 
those  granted  to  Ezra.  A  polytheistic  religion  does  not  interfere  with 
other  polytheistic  creeds,  while  the  promulgation  of  the  Jewish  Law 
involved  the  negation  of  other  creeds.  We  therefore  suggest  that  this 
promulgation  was  a  matter  of  policy  on  the  part  of  Artaxerxes.  The  latter 
looked  upon  the  Jewish  creed  as  being  identical  with  that  of  the  Persians. 
He  was  desirous  of  introducing  the  latter  belief  in  the  Western  countries 
in  order  to  connect  them  more  firmly  with  his  empire,  and  he  saw  in  the 
Jewish  Law  such  a  connecting  link  between  these  inhabitants  and  the 
Persians.  We  shall  deal  with  this  subject  further  on  in  chapter  VII,  n.  59. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  103 

not  have  done  so,  on  account  of  his  observance  of  the  ritual 
laws.  But  at  that  period  these  laws  had  not  yet  been 
firmly  rooted  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  many 
of  them  may  have  neglected  them.^^  The  wealthy  cared 
more,  as  we  have  seen,  for  their  own  comfort  than  for 
religion.  Many  among  them,  indifferent  to  the  religious 
observances,  in  all  probability  pretended  to  be  Zoroastrians, 
and  concealed  their  religion.  Examples  of  this  kind  of 
Jews  we  may  see  in  Mordecai  and  Esther. 

^  Mordecai  was  born  in  Babylonia,  as  we  may  conclude 
from  the  pure  Babylonian  name  he  bears.  The  fact  that 
he  could  rise  later  to  a  high  position  in  Persia  seems  to 
indicate  that  he  came  to  Persia  in  his  early  youth,  and 
received  a  Persian  education. He  was  a  member  of  one 
of  the  distinguished  families  which  had  been  carried  into 
the  Babylonian  captivity  with  the  Judean  king  Jeconiah 
(=  Jehoiachin).  We  have  already  observed  that  those 
noble  families  were  soon  reconciled  to  their  fate,  and  were 
idolaters.  Under  Persian  rule,  however,  idolatry  having 
gone  out  of  fashion,  they  apparently  abandoned  it,  as 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  late  prophets  do  not  accuse 
any  Jew  of  idolatry.  But  even  then  they  were  not  quite 
averse  to  the  worship  of  the  Babylonian  deities,  being 
indifferent  to  both  the  Babylonian  and  the  Jewish  religions. 
There  can  be  little  room  for  doubt  that  the  father  of 
Mordecai  was  a  Jew  of  that  type.  In  Babylonia  a  proper 
name  compounded  with  the  name  of  a  deity  was  intimately 

The  Rabbis  accuse  the  Jews  of  that  period  of  having  partaken  of  the 
feast  of  Ahasuerus  (Megillah  12  a).  They  correctly  judged  that  the  Jewish 
observances  were  neglected  at  that  period. 

According  to  Flavius  Josephus,  in  his  story  of  Esther,  Mordecai 
moved  from  Babylon  to  Susa  after  Esther  had  been  taken  into  the  house 
of  the  king.  This  is  of  course  pure  fancy. 


104  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


connected  with  the  religious  belief  of  its  bearer,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  seal  cylinders.®^  The  bearer  of  a  name 
Nabu-nasir,  ‘the  god  Nabu  protects’,  was  a  votary  of  the 
god  Nabu.  The  name  Mordecai  is  a  hypocoristicon  of  a 
complex  name  compounded  with  the  divine  name  Marduk. 
Thus  the  full  name  was  undoubtedly  of  idolatrous  character. 
If  the  Talmudic  statement,  ‘  Mordecai  is  identical  with 
Bilshan  is  based  on  tradition,  the  compounded  name  of 
Mordecai  was  Mardiik-bel-sJmmi^  ‘  Marduk  is  their  lord 
Such  a  name  could  be  borne  only  by  a  worshipper  of  the 
god  Marduk.  But  that  does  not  prove  that  Mordecai ’s 
father  was  an  idolater.  To  ease  his  son’s  path  through 
life,  that  he  should  not  be  hampered  with  an  outlandish 
name  which  stamps  one  as  an  alien,  his  father  gave  him  a 
pure  Babylonian  name.  Not  infrequently  Jews  in  European 
countries,  where  biblical  names  are  very  seldom  met  with 
among  Christians,  consider  it  likewise  a  disadvantage  for 
the  future  career  of  their  children  to  be  named  Abraham, 

Cf.  J.  Krausz,  Die  Gdtternamen  in  den  Babylonischen  Siegelcylinder- 
Legenden,  Miinchen,  1910,  pp.  15  ff. 

Megillah  15  a  and  Menahoth  65  a.  However,  the  Talmud  had  not 
the  slightest  notion  of  the  meaning  of  Bilshan^  and  explained  it  as  ‘  master 
of  the  languages,  linguist  ’  he  was  said  to  have  been  a  member 

of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  was  therefore  supposed  to  understand  ‘seventy 
languages  that  is  to  say,  he  had  to  understand  the  various  idioms  in  use 
in  Palestine,  and  not  to  have  to  rely  upon  the  services  of  an  interpreter. 
The  explanation  of  Bilshan  presents  a  counterpart  to  that  of  Mordecai, 
which  is  explained  as  ‘pure  myrrh’  NHD),  the  Aramaic  translation 

of  lb  (Exod.  30.  23).  The  fact  that  the  Rabbis  did  not  know  the 
meaning  of  Bilshan^  and  nevertheless  connect  it  with  Mordecai,  seems  to 
point  to  a  true  tradition.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Bel  shunu  is  an  abbreviated 
name,  and  so  is  Mordecai. 

Cf.  Nabu-bel-shunu,  Nin  ib-bel-shunUj  Sha-la~bel\ii^)-shunu  (cf.  Tall- 
quist,  Neubabylonisches  Namenbuch^  Helsingfors,  1905  ;  Assyrian  Personal 
i^amvs,igii\).  Many  of  the  numerqus  names  Marduka^  Mardukvi  (see  ibid,') 
may  be  hypocoristica  of  Marduk-bel-shunu. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I05 


Moses,  &c.  No  Jew  with  any  regard  for  his  religion 
would  have  given  his  son  a  name  that  implied  his  being 
dedicated  to  the  worship  of  Marduk.  But  Jair  was  not 
an  exception  in  this  respect.  It  was  customary  among 
the  indifferent  Babylonian  Jews  to  name  their  children 
Arad-Gula^  N ana-nadin,  Ninib-muballit,  Sin-nasir^ 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  business  documents  of  those 
periods.  But  it  may  be  of  interest  to  observe  that  we  very 
seldom  find  names  of  idolatrous  character  borne  by  relatives 
of  those  whose  names  are  compounded  with  the  divine 
name  Jawa,^'^  The  latter  were,  as  it  seems,  characteristic 
of  the  religious  conduct  of  their  bearers  and  their  families 
as  faithful  worshippers  of  Jahveh.  Mordecai  was  not  better 
in  this  respect,  if  not  worse,  than  his  father,  and  by  no 
means  proud  of  his  religion.  Though  exercising,  as  it 
seems,  some  authority  over  his  humbler  co-religionists  in 
Susa,  as  did  his  distinguished  family  in  Babylonia,  he  was 
anxious  to  conceal  his  Jewish  identity,  which  under  Zoroas¬ 
trianism  it  was  easy  to  accomplish,  without  transgressing 
the  main  tenet  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  name  Mordecai 

Cf.  Bahyl.  Exp,.,  IX,  x  and  Tallquist,  /.  c.  That  the  bearers  of  such 
names  are  Jews  may  be  seen  by  the  names  of  their  fathers  or  sons.  Renan 
{History,  VI,  i)  remarks:  great  many  Jews  became  servants  of  the 

households  of  the  Chaldean  nobility  and  adopted  Chaldean  names,  without 
.troubling  themselves  about  the  paganism  implied  by  these  names.  It  did 
not  entail  any  apostasy  and  was  no  more  shocking  than  when  the  Jews  of 
the  Roman  epoch  called  themselves  Apollonius  or  Hermes.’  His  analogies 
are  wrong.  Strictly  religious  Jews  never  adopted  in  post-exilic  times 
names  implying  paganism.  The  name  Apollonius  is  a  mere  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  name  Samson,  and  the  name  Hermes  means  literally 
‘interpreter’,  and  a  Jew  may  bear  such  a  name,  even  if  it  is  also  that  of 
a  Greek  god.  It  would  be  different  if  a  Jew  would  be  called  Apollodorus 
or  Isidorvis.  They  would  certainly  be  characteristic  of  the  indifference 
toward  the  Jewish  religion  on  the  part  of  their  hearers. 

See  chapter  IX. 


I06  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


being  Babylonian,  we  may  assume  that  he  had  for  special 
use  in  his  dealings  with  Persians  a  pure  Persian  name.^^ 
Esther,  like  Mordecai,  was  born  in  Babylonia.  Her  name, 
undoubtedly  identical  with  that  of  the  goddess  Ishtar  — 
Astarte,  is  a  hypocoristicon  of  a  complex  name  compounded 
with  that  of  this  goddess.  Her  full  name  may  have  been 
I shtar-udda-sha^  ‘  Ishtar  is  her  light  which  would  account 
for  her  two  names,  “inoN  and  riDin,  both  abbreviations, 
=  np*nn“'i)RDX.  But  it  is  perhaps  more  probable  that  the 
name  riDin  is  the  Persian  Hutaosa^  rendered  into  Greek 
as  Atossa^^  and  was  adopted  by  her  in  Persia.  Whatever 
her  compounded  name  may  have  been,  the  name  Esther  = 
Ishtar  evidently  shows  that]  Abihail,  (Esther’s  father,  was 
a  worthy  brother  of  Mordecai’s  father,  Jair.  Having  lost 
both  parents  in  her  childhood,  Esther  was  brought  to  Susa 
and  adopted  by  Mordecai.  He  could  not  give  her  a  better 
Jewish  education  than  he  himself  possessed.  Their  real 
characters  are  shown  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Book 
of  Esther. 


We  find  names  compounded  with  ud  da,  cf.  Tallquist,  Namenbuch. 
This  word  is  a  synonym  of  urru,  un  =  ‘  light  ’,  and  of  nuru  =  j»QJ, 

of  the  same  meaning,  and  is  etymologically  identical  with  Hebrew  niH 
‘splendour’,  which  is  used  also  in  the  formation  of  Hebrew  proper  names 
(see  Hebr.  Dictionary).  Both  synonyms  are  found  in  cuneiform  proper 
names,  as  in  llu-ur-ri,  Ma-lik,  &c.  ;  Nuri-Ishtar,  &c.  (see  Tallquist, 

/.  c.)  That  ud-du  does  not  refer  merely  to  the  ‘daylight’ ;  though  UD  = 
Shamash,  may  be  seen  from  the  name  Nabu-shakin-ud-du,  ‘  the  god  Nabu 
makes  light  ’  (cf.  ibid.).  This  noun  may  have  been  pronounced  hud-du, 
according  to  the  etymology.  We  see  that  even  the  Sumero-Babylonian 
word  ekal,  ‘great  house,  temple,  palace’  was  by  the  Hebrews, pronounced 
hekdl. 

Stanley,  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  III,  p.  196,  remarks;  ^  Hadassah 
(her  Hebrew  name)  is  either  “  myrtle  ”,  or  else  a  Hebraized  form  of  the 
Persian  Atossa.’’  But  the  Hebrew  form  stands  nearer  to  the  Persian  name 
Hutaosah  than  the  Greek  rendering  Atossa.  Cf.  Cassel,  1.  c.,  p.  54. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  107 


Orthodoxy  and  Heterodoxy,  the  two  opposing  tendencies 
within  Judaism,  are  by  no  means  peculiar  to  and  charac¬ 
teristic  of  our  enlightened  era.  They  are  as  old  as  Judaism 
itself,  though  in  each  age,  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing 
ideas.  Heterodoxy  assumed  a  different  character.  As  long 
as  idolatry  was  fashionable,  the  Heterodox  were  idolaters ; 
in  the  Alexandrian  age,  Hellenists ;  under  the  Maccabees, 
Sadducees;  during  the  Jewish-Christian  era,  adherents  of 
the  Christian  doctrines ;  in  the  period  of  the  Geonim, 
Karaites ;  in  the  Middle  Ages,  philosophers  ;  and  at  a  later 
period,  Cabbalists.  Orthodoxy,  the  real  representative  of 
that  Judaism  established  during  and  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  has  survived  all  these  changes.®^  The  same  two 
tendencies  in  Judaism  are  met  with  in  the  times  of  Mordecai 
and  Esther. 

The  author  of  our  story  states  :  *  Esther  had  not  shewed  Esther 

10 

her  people  nor  her  kindred  ;  for  Mordecai  had  charged  her 
that  she  should  not  shew  it  He  tells  it  so  frankly  and 

Many  of  those  opposed  to  Rabbinic  Judaism,  whose  aim  was  at  the 
start  to  abrogate  its  rigid  observances,  found  that  they  could  not  draw 
a  strict  line  between  the  latter  and  those  of  the  Mosaic  Law." 

62  The  passage  nmijID  DNI  n»y  DK  nnD«  m'in  vh  is  not  quite 
clear.  The  terms  Dy  and  here  and  in  the  similar  passage  HJIDN  pX 

nioy  DNI  mJD  (II,  20)  might  be  regarded  as  hendiadys.  But 

that  is  scarcely  true  of  the  other  passage :  ny^^  Tl'Nll  'D 

'Dy  m  'im  ‘  For  how  can 

I  endure  to  see  the  evil  that  shall  come  unto  my  people  ?  or  how  can  I  endure 
to  see  the  destruction  of  my  kindred’?  (VIII,  6).  The  term  means 

either  ‘native  place’  or  ‘kindred’.  The  former  meaning  is  here  impossible, 
as  Esther’s  native  place  was  Babylonia,  and  the  latter  very  improbable. 

But  may  mean  also  ‘  place  of  origin  ’,  and  could  refer  to  Judea. 

Such  an  interpretation  is  not  impossible,  as  the  execution  of  Haman’s  edict 
involved  the  destruction  of  the^  Jewish  state,  as  we  shall  further  see.  But 
it  is  strange  that  the  terms  oy  are  nowhere  found,  outside  of 

Esther,  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  find  only  pnN  or  pTN. 


Io8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


naively,  without  giving  any  reason  for  such  a  conduct,  as  if 
it  were  the  most  ^natural  way  and  a  matter  of  course,  and 
not  a  dastardly  act,  for  a  Jew  to  conceal  his  religion.®^  It 
was  indeed  unnecessary  for  the  author  to  explain  why 
Mordecai  charged  Esther  not  to  disclose  her  Jewish  identity, 
as  we  can  read  the  reason  between  the  lines.  Relying  upon 
Esther’s  great  charms,  which,  in  his  belief,  could  not  fail 
to  captivate  the  king’s  heart,  Mordecai  was  apprehensive 
of  her  being  excluded  from  the  competition  for  the  rank 
of  queen  if  she  was  known  as  an  adherent  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  For  her  elevation  he  was  ready  and  willing  to 
sacrifice  her  religion.®^  If  Mordecai  had  been  imbued  with 

Hence  there  is  room  for  doubt  whether  the  original  text  contained  the 
word  We  shall  find  that  Haman’s  edict  was  not  directed  against 

the  Jewish  race,  but  against  those  who  were  adherents  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  They  were  in  no  danger,  if  they  abandoned  it.  But  at  a  later 
period,  the  real  issue  of  that  event  was  not  known  any  longer.  The  term 
m,  a  Persian  loan-word  (which  occurs  so  often  in  Esther),  in  the  passage 
ny  Dn-mi  ‘  their  laws  are  diverse  from  all  people’,  refers  of 

course  to  the  Jewish  religion.  The  identical  term  is  used  in  the  Mishnah 
in  n’'Tin'’  m  ^  the  Jewish  Law’,  and  m  ‘  the  Law  of  Moses 

and  Israel’.  Hence  we  venture  the  following  suggestion.  The  same  word 
m  might  have  been  contained  in  the  original  text  in  the  passages  quoted. 
But  a  later  copyist  changed  the  word  JlT  into  ,  believing  that  m  and 

DV  are  superfluous  synonyms,  as  a  member  of  the  Jewish  race  is  of  course 
an  adherent  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Thus  the  original  meaning  of  the 
passages  II,  lo.  20  might  have  been  :  Esther  kept  secret  her  people  and  her 
religion.  In  her  supplication  to  the  king,  Esther  complained  not  only  about 
the  evil  that  shall  come  unto  her  people,  but  also  about  the  disappearance 
of  the  Jewish  creed.  Siegfried,  l.c.,  is  correct  in  objecting  that  is 

here  out  of  place. 

Ibn  Ezra  remarks  :  ‘  Some  say  that  Mordecai  was  wrong  in  com¬ 
manding  Esther  not  to  disclose  her  origin,  because  he  feared  that  he  might 
not  take  her  for  a  wife  if  he  knew  that  she  was  one  of  the  exiles.  But 
others  say  that  Mordecai  learned  in  a  dream  that  Esther  was  destined  to 
save  Israel  ’. 

Paton,  l.c.,  p.  178,  observes:  ‘There  is  nothing  of  the  martyr-spirit 
in  Mordecai,  as  in  Daniel  and  his  friends  who  display  their  Judaism  at  all 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  109 


the  spirit  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
rather  than  giving  her  in  marriage  to  a  Gentile  he  would 
have  slain  his  adopted  daughter  with  his  own  hands, 
and  he  would  certainly  have  charged  her  to  disclose  her 
religion.®^  If  Esther  had  been  a  true  daughter  of  Israel 
she  would  have  done  everything  in  her  power  not  to 
become  the  wife  of  a  Gentile,  preferring  the  observance 
of  her  religion  to  the  rank  of  a  queen.®®  On  informing 
the  keeper  of  the  harem  of  her  religion,  Esther  would  have 
done  her  duty,  and  been  free  from  blame  if  he  had  kept 
her  notwithstanding  that  reason,  as  we  could  not  condemn 
her  for  not  having  been  courageous  enough  to  prefer  death 
to  that  fate. 

However,  on  the  other  hand,  the  question  presents  itself: 
Why  did  Mordecai  so  ardently  desire  to  see  Esther  as 
queen?  Was  it  due  to  his  ambition?  Certainly  not  1  ®’^ 
If  he  had  been  ambitious,  it  would  have  been  easy  for  him 

costs.  So  long  as  there  is  any  advantage  in  hiding  it,  he  does  not  let 
Esther  tell  her  race ;  only  when  secrecy  is  no  longer  useful,  does  he  bid 
her  disclose  it’  (see  n.  68). 

The  author  of  the  apocryphal  additions  to  the  Greek  version  of  Esther 
could  not  comprehend  either  how  the  pious  Esther  could  have  acted  in  that 
way,  and  lets  her  say  in  her  prayer:  ‘Thou  hast  knowledge  of  all  things, 
and  thou  knowest  that  I  hate  the  glory  of  the  wicked  and  abhor  the  bed 
of  the  uncircumcised  and  of  every  alien  This  prayer  is  characteristic  of 
the  mode  of  thinking  of  religious  Jews  of  the  Graeco-Roman  period  con¬ 
cerning  intermarriage. 

See,  however,  Cassel,  p.  61  f. 

The  commentators  who  think  that  Esther  concealed  not  only  her 
Jewish  origin,  but  also  her  kinship  to  Mordecai,  must  admit  that  the  latter 
could  hardly  have  profited  anything  by  Esther’s  exalted  position.  Moreover, 
they  assume  that  ‘  Mordecai  was  sitting  in  the  king’s  gate  ’  as  a  lounger, 
and  not  in  an  official  character.  Thus  what  advantage  was  there  for 
Mordecai  ?  Hence  it  is  evident  that  Mordecai  did  not  act  out  of  selfish 
motives  in  furthering  the  elevation  of  Esther,  but  for  the  welfare  of  his 
people  (see  n.  64). 


no  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


to  be  appointed  to  a  high  position  after  the  elevation  of 
Esther,  or  at  least  after  having  saved  the  king’s  life.  Thus 
it  is  evident  that  his  desire  that  Esther  should  be  elevated 
to  the  rank  of  queen  was  not  prompted  by  selfish  motives. 
Although  concealing  his  own  religion,  Mordecai  was  never¬ 
theless  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  his  people,  and  was 
convinced  that  Esther  on  becoming  queen  would  be  in 
a  position  to  render  them  many  useful  services,  as  indeed 
she  was. 

However  so  prudent  and  farsighted  the  policy  of  Mor¬ 
decai,  in  his  endeavour  to  elevate  Esther,  may  have  been 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Jewish  people;  from  a  purely 
religious  point  of  view,  we  either  must  condemn  his  conduct 
or  accept  utility  as  the  sole  standard  of  rectitude.  An 
approval  of  Mordecai’s  action  would  give  full  licence  to 
intermarriage.  We  might  say  that  that  prohibition  under 
certain  circumstances  may  be  disregarded,  if  any  essential 
advantage  would  accrue  to  the  Jewish  people  or  to  some 
Jewish  community  from  such  an  intermarriage.  It  would  be 
wellnigh  impossible  to  draw  a  strict  line  between  a  marriage 
to  a  king,  a  high  official,  or  any  other  person.  But 
Mordecai  no  doubt  belonged  to  that  party  which  espoused 
intermarriage  between  the  Jews  in  Palestine  and  their 
non- Jewish  neighbours,  as  by  these  alliances  they  were 
strengthening  their  own  position.®^  That  policy,  however, 
though  of  great  advantage  to  the  newly-established  Jewish 
state,  was  disastrous  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  we  may 
doubt  whether  the  latter  would  have  survived  if  such  a 
practice  would  have  been  permitted  to  continue.  On  the 

That  party  was  in  all  other  respects  just  as  strict  worshippers  of 
Jahveh  as  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  since  even  the  family  of  the  High-priest  was 
related  by  marriage  to  the  Samaritan  Sanballat  and  to  other  non-Judaeans. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  III 


other  hand,  the  zeal  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  against  inter¬ 
marriage  caused  many  hardships  to  the  Jewish  people  in 
Judea,  and  jeopardized  the  existence  of  the  new  state,  but 
the  Jewish  religion  remained  pure  and  intact.  Thus  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  represented  Orthodoxy,  while  Mordecai 
was  the  representative  of  the  Heterodox  wing  of  Judaism 
of  that  period  which  advocated  intermarriage. 

It  is  characteristic  of  Jews  in  all  periods  that,  though 
indifferent  to  religious  observances,  and  being  hardly 
recognized  as  members  of  the  Jewish  people,  at  times  of 
religious  persecutions  they  do  not  stand  aloof  from  their 
suffering  brethren,  but  identify  themselves  with  them  in 
every  respect,  some  of  them  becoming  even  more  or  less 
religious.  The  religious  persecutions  which  soon  broke  out 
had  the  same  effect  upon  Mordecai.  Seeing  the  sufferings 
of  the  Jews,  Mordecai  openly  declared  his  adherence  to  the 
Jewish  religion,®^  and  did  everything  in  his  power  to  assist 
his  brethren.  But  a  change  produced  by  sympathy,  not 
conviction,  never  has  a  lasting  effect.  Mordecai,  after  his 
elevation  to  the  rank  of  prime  minister,  was  not  and  could 
not  have  been  religious."^^  The  Rabbinic  homiletic  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  passage,  ‘  He  was  pleasing  to  most  of  his 
brethren  ’,  that  it  meant  to  indicate  that  a  part  of  the 
Sanhedrin  separated  themselves  from  him,'^^  contains  a 
great  deal  of  truth,  even  more  than  the  rabbis  intended 

I 

to  imply.  A  part  of  his  brethren  refused  to  have  any 
intercourse  with  Mordecai.  Even  among  the  Sanhedrin, 
the  leaders  of  Israel,  the  strictly  religious  Jews,  who  do  not 
barter  the  tenets  of  their  religion  for  worldly  advantages, 

See  chapter  VIII. 

Cf.  also  Renan,  History,  VI,  r. 

Megillah  i6  b. 


1 12  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


though  being  in  all  periods  Israel’s  very  representatives 
and  preservers,  always  form  only  a  small  fraction.  And 
men  of  that  type  refused  to  associate  with  him. 

The  Book  of  Esther  was  in  all  probability  composed 
in  Babylonia,  not  Palestine,”^^  as  the  former  country  was 
for  a  considerable  period  the  real  centre  of  Jewish  learning. 
It  undoubtedly  was  composed  at  a  time  when  the  person¬ 
alities  of  Mordecai  and  Esther  were  still  well  known.  Its 
compilers  were  the  Sopherim,  who  strictly  adhered  to  the 
principles  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Upon  them  devolved 
the  task  of  commemorating  an  event,  in  which  the 
opponents  of  the  latter,  against  whose  principles  they  still 
had  continually  to  fight,  figured  as  heroes  and  saviours 
of  Israel.  Those  Sopherim  were  in  a  most  embarrassing 
situation.  They  could  not  deny  the  fact  that  Mordecai 
and  Esther,  though  having  been  transgressors  of  the  Law, 
actually  effected  the  rescue  of  Israel’s  religion.  Not  to 
record  such  an  event  would  have  been  disgraceful.''^  But 

But  they  did  not  put  this  story  in  writing  during  the  life-time  of 
Mordecai  and  Esther  (see  following  notes  and  chapters  VH,  IX). 

Megillah  7  a  :  ‘  Esther  sent  to  the  sages,  saying  :  “  Record  this  event 

of  mine  for  future  generations.”  But  they  sent  back  :  “  It  is  written,  Have 

I  not  written  for  thee  three  times?”  (Prov.  22.  20).  This  passage  teaches 

that  any  event  should  be  recorded  only  three  times,  and  not  four  times,  and 

the  memory  of  Amalek’s  destruction  is  already  recorded  three  times. 

(Thus  they  refused  to  record  it)  until  they  found  for  her  a  biblical  verse  : 

“  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book”  (Exod.  16.  14) :  write  this  ”  refers 

to  the  records  made  by  Moses  himself,  here  and  Deuteronomy  25.  17-19  ; 

“  for  a  memorial  ”  refers  to  that  which  is  written  in  the  historical  records 

of  the  prophets  (i  Sam.  15.  1-34):  “in  a  book”  refers  to  the  event  of 

% 

Purim,  the  story  of  which  ought  to  be  represented  in  a  special  Book  ’ 

(li?,  TinriD  ’  rh  nnni?  '•jun:]  D'Dsnt’  nnos*  Dni? 

nio  nxr  nin3  ‘  ^202  ’ 

r]b^:D2  hd  hd  pn^r). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  II 3 


it  could  not  be  done  without  jeopardizing  the  ^religious 
principles  for  which  they  stood.  To  describe  Mordecai 
and  Esther  as  ardent  adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion  was 
impossible.  The  religious  conduct  of  Mordecai  and  Esther 
was  well  known.  Besides,  the  Sopherim  would  under  no 
circumstances  have  consciously  distorted  the  facts.  To 
represent,  however,  non-religious  Jews  as  God’s  chosen 
instruments  for  the  preservation  of  Israel,  would  have  been 
destructive  to  the  ritual  edifice  they  strove  to  preserve 
intact.  The  people  would  have  been  perplexed,  and  would 
have  raised  the  question :  How  could  the  rites  and  ob¬ 
servances  be  an  essential  part  of  the  Law  of  Israel  if  God 
chose  for  his  own  instruments  people  who  did  not  care  for 
them?  The  only  way  out  of  this  dilemma  was  to  represent 
the  events  exactly  as  they  happened,  without  suggesting 
that  there  was  any  divine  intervention.  In  this  way  the 
compilers  did  not  commit  themselves,  and  the  people  could 
interpret  this  story  each  according  to  his  own  sentiments. 
In  the  present  writer’s  opinion,  a  strictly  orthodox  rabbi 
of  to-day  would  be  in  the  same  predicament,  if  compelled 
by  circumstances  to  write  the  biography  of  a  great  Jewish 
philanthropist  who  was  indifferent  to  all  religious  ob¬ 
servances,  and  would  have  to  act  in  the  same  way  as  the 
Sopherim  did  in  the  compilation  of  the  Book  of  Esther, 
circumspectly  avoiding  all  matters  pertaining  to  religion. 

There  is  a  Talmudic  statement  that  Esther  requested 
the  sages  of  her  period  to  compile  the  story  of  that  event, 
and  they  at  first  refused  to  comply  with  her  request."'^ 

Rabbi  Joshua,  son  of  Hananiah  (flourished  about  loo  c.  E.),  still  held  that 
this  Book  ought  not  to  have  been  put  in  writing,  in  explaining:  ‘  write  this  ’ 
refers  to  what  is  written  in  Exodus;  ‘  for  a  memorial’  refers  to  the  repeti¬ 
tion  of  that  commandment  in  Deuteronomy  to  remind  Israel  to  keep  it 
in  their  memory;  ‘in  a  book’  refers  to  what  is  written  in  the  Book  of 
II.  I 


1 14  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Who  knows  whether  this  narrative  is  not  based  on  some 
tradition  ?  We  can  well  imagine  that  it  was  Esther’s  just 
ambition  to  have  the  event  in  which  she  played  such  a 
conspicuous  part  recorded  for  the  admiration  of  future 
generations,  and  that  the  Sopherim,  confronted  by  the 
difficulty  of  such  a  task,  used  some  subterfuge  to  be  excused 
from  compiling  that  story,  in  expressing  their  opinion  that 
it  ought  to  be  handed  down  by  tradition,  like  the  Oral 
Law,  and  not  to  be  recordedJ^  We  may  even  assume  that 
they  definitely  refused  to  undertake  this  compilation,  and 
that  the  only  record  of  that  event  consisted  of  the  letters 
sent  out  by  Mordecai  and  Esther.^®  Later,  however,  being 
afraid  lest  the  Feast  of  Purim  might  assume  a  non-Jewish 
character,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  the  Sopherim  could 
not  but  compile  the  story  of  that  event,  and  order  its 

Samuel  no  |nDT  hd  nxi  niriD 

HD  tbid.).  In  the  present  writer’s  opinion,  these 

homiletic  explanations  do  not  give  the  real  reasons  pro  and  contra.  The 
Rabbis  were  averse  to  questioning  the  religious  conduct  of  Mordecai,  and 
therefore  expressed  their  opinions  in  homiletic  disguise. 

See  chapter  IV. 

We  shall  see  that  the  Sopherim  were  even  averse  to  the  commemora¬ 
tion  of  this  event,  because  the  time  of  the  celebration  was  simultaneous 
with  that  of  a  Persian  festival.  The  Talmud  indeed  tells  us  ;  ‘  Esther  sent 
to  the  sages  :  “  Establish  for  me  a  festival  for  future  generations”.  But  they 
sent  back:  “Will  you  incite  envy  against  us  among  the  nations  ?  ”  She, 
however,  sent  back:  “(There  is  no  fear  of  that)  as  the  event  of  mine  is 
already  written  in  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Media  and 

Persia  ” ’  HNDp  nb  nnni?  'Jiy2p  D'csni?  nnox  oni? 
nm  nao  bv  nnina  nna  Dni?  niDiNn  mTiyD 

'ID  CDTl,  Megillah  7a).  In  this  homiletic  saying  we  may 

perhaps  see  a  trace  of  a  tradition  that  the  Sopherim  refused  to  sanction  the 
establishment  of  the  festival  of  Purim.  We  observe,  by  the  way,  that  this 
saying  seems  to  confirm  the  suggestion  in  chapter  IV,  that  the  existence 
of  the  Book  of  Esther  may  have  caused  trouble  to  the  Jews  in  the  East 
in  a  certain  period,  ‘inciting  envy  against  them  among  the  nations’. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  II5 


reading  on  the  day  of  this  Festival.  Both  Rabbi  Joshua 
and  Samuel  in  decreeing  that  ‘  the  Book  of  Esther  does  not 
defile  the  hands’/^  were  undoubtedly  displeased  with  the 
non-religious  style  of  the  book,  and  considered  such  a  defect 
just  as  bad  as  the  scepticism  of  Ecclesiastes.’^®  Looking 
upon  Mordecai  and  Esther  as  saints  in  Israel,  and  on  the 
compilers  of  that  book  as  having  been  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  non-religious  character  of  that  book  was  beyond 
their  comprehension.  They  may  have  believed  that  the 
Sopherim  did  not  dare  to  represent  Ahasuerus  as  an 
instrument  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  therefore  omitted 
all  religious  elements.  Those  rabbis,  however,  did  not 
approve  of  such  a  procedure.  In  their  opinion,  if  a  book 
that  records  such  a  signal  rescue  of  Israel  had  to  be  devoid 
of  all  religious  elements,  the  records  of  that  event  ought 
not  to  have  been  put  in  writing,  but  handed  down  by 
tradition."^^  This  is  the  real  meaning  of  the  Talmudic  inter¬ 
pretation  of  those  rabbis’  opinions :  ‘  The  story  of  Esther 

The  saying  D'TTI  DN  IJ'S  "IHDN  ‘  the  Book  of  Esther  does 

not  defile  the  hands’,  is  mentioned  only  in  the  name  of  Samuel,  not  in  that 
of  Rabbi  Joshua.  Since,  however,  we  are  informed  that  ‘  Samuel  holds 
the  opinion  of  Rabbi  Joshua’,  that  Esther  ought  not  to  have  been  recorded, 
we  must  assume  that  in  the  latter’s  opinion,  Esther  does  not  belong  to  the 
sacred  Books,  and  thus  does  not  defile  the  hands  (see  ibid.). 

As  to  Ecclesiastes,  there  are  divergent  opinions:  ‘Rabbi  Meir  says: 
‘Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands,  but  there  is  disagreement  concerning 
Canticles’;  Rabbi  Jose  says:  ‘Canticles  defiles  the  hands,  but  there  is 
disagreement  concerning  Ecclesiastes’;  Rabbi  Simeon  says:  ‘Ecclesiastes 
belongs  to  the  decisions  in  which  the  School  of  Shamai  was  more  lenient 
than  the  School  of  Hillel,  but  Ruth,  Canticles,  and  Esther  defile  the  hands’ 

nn'n  nx  n'ND  'an 

un  n^np3  m  ncdd  'dv  'n-i 

nn  nioinDi  nu  ni^np  nioix 

DH'n  nN  pNDDD  nnoNi  iOid.,  &c. 

See  note  73. 


Il6  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


was  composed  to  be  read,  but  not  to  be  written  down 
The  latter  agreed  with  their  colleagues  that  *  the  compilation 
of  the  story  of  Esther  was  made  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit but  were  unwilling  to  admit  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  inspired  them  to  omit  the  name  of  God,  seeing 
in  this  omission  a  certain  faint-heartedness.  The  other 
rabbis,  however,  looked  upon  it  from  a  different  point  of 
view,  holding  perhaps  that  the  story  is  the  more  religious 
in  its  spirit,  because  of  its  being  so  entirely  free  from  the 
phraseology  of  religion.^^ 

Bearing  in  mind  the  religious  conceptions  of  Mordecai 
and  Esther,  we  understand  why  Sirach  did  not  enumerate 
them  among  ‘the  Fathers  of  the  world  To  any  un- 

rinpi?  nnD^?,  Megiiiah  ^  a. 

nnn  nnoN,  ibid. 

See  also  Stanley,  History^  III,  p.  201. 

Wildeboer,  p.  172,  and  other  commentators  conclude  from  the  fact 
that  Sirach  did  not  mention  Mordecai  and  Esther,  that  their  story  was 
unknown  in  his  time.  Jampel,  however,  calls  attention  to  Sirach’s  omission 
of  Daniel  and  Ezra.  But  these  omissions  do  not  invalidate  the  critics’ 
objection.  The  existence  of  the  historical  Daniel  cannot  be  denied,  as  we 
have  for  it  the  testimony  of  Ezekiel  (28.  3) :  ‘  Behold,  thou  art  wiser  than 
Daniel’.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  latter  was  not  a  contemporary 
of  Ezekiel,  as  he  is  represented  with  Noah  and  Job  as  an  example  of  a  God¬ 
fearing  man  (14.  14,  20).  If  he  was  not  a  pre-historic  personality,  he  must 
have  lived  in  the  hoary  antiquity.  The  Book  that  bears  his  name  is  no 
doubt  younger  than  Sirach.  As  to  Ezra,  Sirach  was  not  a  ‘  Bible-critic  ’. 
In  his  eyes  Ezra  was  merely  the  copyist  of  the  Mosaic  Law  and  a  holy  man, 
but  no  more  holy  than  the  prophets  Haggai,  Zachariah,  and  Malachi,  whom 
he  also  omitted  to  mention.  Ezra,  in  Sirach’s  opinion,  was  only  the  leader 
of  about  fourteen  hundred  immigrants  and  one  of  the  great  teachers  of  the 
people.  But  having  built  neither  the  Temple  nor  the  walls  of  Jerusalem, 
he  did  not  leave  a  lasting  memorial  for  future  generations.  Of  Nehemiah 
he  could  say  that  he  raised  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  and  restored  the  home 
of  Israel.  But  Sirach  could  not  have  omitted  the  names  of  Mordecai  and 
Esther  who  played  such  an  important  part  in  Jewish  history,  if  he  had 
considered  them  saints  in  Israel. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  II7 


prejudiced  mind  it  must  have  been  obvious  that  they  did 
not  belong  in  this  assemblage.  In  a  later  period,  however, 
the  Book  of  Esther  having  become  popular,  it  would  have 
been  blasphemy  to  criticize  the  conduct  of  these  saviours 
of  Israel.  The  rabbis  had  no  other  course  but  to  represent 
them  as  Jewish  saints,  and  endeavoured  to  the  best  of  their 
ability  to  defend  and  justify  all  their  actions. 


Il8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  VI 


The  nature  of  the  danger  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Esther — The  intro¬ 
duction  of  anthropomorphic  images  into  the  Zoroastrian  religion— The  reform 
against  Zoroastrianism — Religion  and  state — Zoroastrianism  as  the  supreme 
religion  of  the  Persian  empire  —  Anahita  as  the  representative  and  mani¬ 
festation  of  Ahuramazda — The  effect  of  the  reform — A  Persian  tradition 
— The  reform  affected  the  Jews -The  religious  persecutions — The  strictly 
religious  Jews — The  festivals  of  Anahita — Historical  reminiscences  of  the 
persecutions. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  discussed  the  term 
‘Jews’  (D‘'Tin^),  and  found  that  it  designates  adherents  of 
the  Jewish  religion,  regardless  of  their  extraction.  This 
definition  is  borne  out  by  historical  facts.  All  dangers 
and  persecutions  the  Jews  experienced,  from  the  time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  down  to  the  present,  were  solely 
due  to  their  religion,  and  not  to  their  race  extraction. 
Jews  never  suffered,  as  we  already  observed,  if  they  con¬ 
formed  to  the  religion  of  the  country  where  they  dwelt, 
because  such  a  step  wiped  out  the  mark  that  distinguished 
and  separated  them  from  the  Gentiles.  Jews  living  in  a 
country  for  many  hundreds  of  years  were  always  considered 
aliens.  But  if  one  among  them  abandoned  his  religion 
he  became  at  once  a  full-fledged  citizen. 

The  danger  impending  over  the  Jews  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  Esther  was  no  exception  in  that  respect.  This 
also  had  a  purely  religious  character.  The  current  opinion 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  II9 


concerning  the  personality  of  Haman  and  his  detestation 
of  the  Jewish  race  is  absolutely  erroneous.  If  a  man  is  an 
inveterate  enemy  and  a  zealous  persecutor  of  a  certain 
religious  creed,  which  he  regards  as  pernicious  to  the  welfare 
of  his  country,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  a  wicked 
character.  Haman  was  not  worse  than  many  Christian 
and  Mohammedan  potentates  who,  actuated  by  zeal 
for  their  own  religions  or  by  political  reasons,  fanati¬ 
cally  persecuted  their  Jewish  subjects,  but  who  in  other 
respects  by  no  means  showed  vile  dispositions.  Haman 
never  thought  of  destroying  a  whole  race  without  cause 
on  their  part;  His  decree  was  not  aimed  at  the  Jewish 
people,  but  at  the  Jewish  religion,  and  such  a  danger  could 
be  easily  averted  by  renouncing  it.  His  intention  was  the 
destruction  of  an  idea,  not  of  the  individual  who  adhered 
to  it.  The  fate  of  being  exterminated  was  of  course 
inevitable,  if  the  Jewish  people  should  remain  stubborn 
and  refuse  to  part  with  their  religious  belief.  But  the 
decree  was  of  no  effect  if  they  ceased  to  be  ‘Jews’  (Dnin'). 
However,  that  religious  persecution  was  not  due  to  his 
personal  aversion  to  the  Jewish  religion.  It  was  dictated 
by  the  policy  of  the  Persian  empire,  with  which  the  Jewish 
religious  conceptions  came  into  collision. 

Under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II  an  important  inno¬ 
vation  was  introduced  into  the  Persian  religion.  The 
Babylonian  priest  and  historian  Berosus  informs  us  that 
the  Persians  knew  of  no  images  of  gods  until  Artaxerxes  II 
erected  images  of  the  goddess  Anahita  in  all  the  centres 
of  the  Persian  empire.^  The  statement  of  Berosus  is  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  cuneiform  inscriptions.^  Those  of  the  former 

^  Miiller’s  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Graecomm ,  16. 

2  Die  AUpersischen  Keilinsdmflen  (Weissbach  und  Bang),  p.  45. 


120  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

kings  name  only  Ahuramazda,  but  Artaxerxes  II,  in,  his 
inscriptions,  invokes  Ahuramazda,  Anahita,  and  Mithra. 
The  last  two  gods  belonged  to  the  old  popular  belief,  but 
were  abandoned  by  the  true  Zoroastrians.^ 

This  innovation,  having  been  against  the  spirit  of 
Zoroastrianism,  could  not  have  met  with  the  unanimous 
approval  of  the  Persians.  Now  Zoroaster’s  religion  could 
have  been  preserved  in  purity  only  within  a  limited  circle. 
•  The  common  people  required  religious  food  of  a  more 
sensual  and  vigorous  character’,  as  Ed.  Meyer  observes."^ 
Nevertheless,  that  limited  circle  was  no  doubt  sufficiently 
numerous  and  influential  to  resent  and  oppose  such  an 
innovation.  The  erection  of  sanctuaries  for  Anahita  in  all 
the  centres  of  the  Persian  dominion,  even  among  non- 
Iranians  as  in  Sardes  and  Damascus,  indicates  that 
Artaxerxes  II  desired  to  introduce  the  worship  of  this 
Iranian  goddess  throughout  his  empire.  What  may  have 
caused  Artaxerxes  II  to  depart  from  the  ways  of  his 
predecessors  ?  It  could  not  have  been  a  mere  fancy  for 
overthrowing  the  old  established  principles  of  the  Zoroas- 
trian  religion.  Some  important  object  must  have  been 
involved  whose  attainment  he  deemed  necessary  for  the 
consolidation  of  his  empire. 

Religion  was  always  intimately  connected  with  the 
worldly  power.  All  the  institutions  of  the  government 
were  permeated  by  religious  ideas.^  The  king  was  merely 
the  representative  of  the  tutelary  deity  of  the  state. 
Accordingly  the  rank  of  the  deity  depended  upon  that 

^  Cf.  Ed.  Meyer’s  article  ‘  Artaxerxes  Encycl.  Brit,  and  G.  A.,  Ill,  127. 

^  Ibid.^  p.  126. 

^  On  this  subject  see  especially  Jastrow’s  Religious  Aspects  and  Beliefs  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria,  1911,  chapter  V. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I2I 


of  the  king  by  whom  it  was  represented,  rising  and  falling 
with  the  fortunes  of  its  representative.  In  one  case,  however, 
the  deity  assumed  such  a  high  position  that  it  became  the 
protector  of  the  state  which  had  raised  it  from  obscurity, 
and  its  rank  remained  independent  of  that  of  its  repre¬ 
sentative.  Such  was  the  case  of  the  Babylonian  god 
Marduk  who  was  originally  an  insignificant  local  god  of 
Babylon.  But  he  became  the  head  of  the  Babylonian 
pantheon,  and  was  identified  with  the  former  Sumerian 
chief  god,  Enlil  of  Nippur,  because  Babylon  had  become, 
under  the  reign  of  Hammurabi,  the  capital  of  the  Babylonian 
empire.  This  city,  though  politically  no  more  of  im¬ 
portance,  after  the  passing  of  the  Hammurabi  dynasty, 
nevertheless  retained  its  high  position  as  the  seat  of 
Bel-Marduk.  The  king  who  seized  the  hand  of  the  god 
on  the  New  Year  festival  considered  himself  the  greatest 
monarch,  and  claimed  by  virtue  of  his  position  the  rule 

i 

of  the  world.  The  various  Babylonian  cities  were  united 
by  a  religious  idea. 

The  constitutions  of  the  governments  of  the  Euphrates 
Valley  present  in  that  respect  no  exception  to  the  general 
rule.  The  same  fundamental  idea  of  the  body  politic 
existed  in  most  ancient  states.  Religion  was  in  antiquity 
the  basis  of  the  political  community.  The  state  existed 
only  through  the  gods.  In  claiming  to  fight  for  the  glory 
of  the  gods  and  not  for  its  own  aggrandizement,  the  state 
could  hold  its  own  against  other  powers,  and  increased 
thereby  in  strength  and  prosperity.®  The  theocratic  con¬ 
stitution  of  Israel,  as  ordained  by  its  Lawgiver,  though 
never  fully  realized,  was  no  novelty.  The  institutions  of 
ancient  Greece,  as  the  Amphictyonic  Council  and  the 

^  See  Ed.  Meyer,  G.  A.,  Ill,  p.  167. 


122  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

Olympics,  which  were  of  paramount  importance  for  the 
unification  of  the  various  Greek  states  and  the  preservation 
of  their  independence  in  the  Persian  Wars,  were  of  purely 
religious  origin.  The  mighty  empire  of  the  Caliphs  was 
founded  upon  Islam.  The  mediaeval  Christian  rulers  pur¬ 
sued  the  same  policy.  Thus  religion  was  in  all  periods 
considered  the  best  cement  for  joining  heterogeneous  races 
into  one  united  nation. 

However,  the  Persian  empire  was  different  from  other 
governments  of  antiquity.  Here  we  do  not  find  that 
intimate  relationship  between  Temple  and  Palace.  Although 
the  Achaemenian  kings  had  been  the  very  representatives 
of  the  Zoroastrian  religion  and  identified  with  all  its 
movements,"^  the  Persian  empire  was  not  founded  upon 
a  religious  idea.  The  conglomerate  of  the  heterogeneous 
elements  of  which  it  consisted  was  kept  together  by  force 
of  arms,  the  effect  of  which  could  only  be  transitory.  The 
Persian  rulers  felt  themselves  powerful  enough  to  hold 
the  conquered  countries  in  obedience  without  the  aid  of 
religion.  As  a  rule,  they  did  not  interfere  with  the  creeds 
of  their  subjects,  and  made  no  attempts  to  disseminate 
their  own  religion  in  their  dependencies.  On  the  contrary, 
though  considering  the  polytheistic  religions,  in  which  the 
gods  were  represented  in  human  and  animal  shapes,  puerile, 
the  Persian  kings  treated  them  with  all  reverence.  We 
must,  of  course,  except  the  conduct  of  the  demented 
Cambyses  in  Egypt. 

When  Artaxerxes  1 1  ascended  the  throne,  the  authority 
of  the  empire  in  the  interior  provinces  was  badly  shaken. 
Insurrections  frequently  occurred,  and  the  disintegration 


See  Jackson,  Zoroaster^  ‘  On  the  Date  of  Zoroaster’. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  123 


of  the  empire  seemed  imminent.  Though  its  foreign 
relations  were  better  than  before  his  accession,  this  was  not 
due  to  its  power,  but  to  the  discord  of  the  Grecian  states. 
According  to  Plutarch :  ‘  The  Greeks  who  forced  their  way, 
as  it  were,  out  of  the  very  palace  of  Artaxerxes,  showed 
that  the  grandeur  of  the  Persians  was  mere  parade  and 
ostentation’.^  The  liberal  policy  pursued  by  the  Persian 
kings,  which  at  the  time  of  their  vigour  largely  contributed 
to  the  building  up  of  the  empire,  as  the  subjugated  countries 
soon  became  reconciled  to  its  rule,^  was  now,  as  the  Persians 
were  becoming  somewhat  enervated,  the  very  source  of  its 
weakness.^®  The  Persian  empire  lacked  an  idea  suitable 
to  cement  the  divergent  races  into  one  united  nation. 

We  may  safely  assume  that  the  Persian  patriots  and 
the  king’s  councillors  were  fully  aware  of  the  gradual  decay 
of  the  empire,  and  devised  various  remedies  to  check  its 
progress.  One  of  the  councillors,  acquainted  with  Oriental 
history,  and  thus  knowing  how  religious  ideas  were  utilized 
for  political  purposes,  and  what  powerful  instruments  they 
are  for  the  consolidation  of  governments,  suggested  the 
religious  idea  as  the  best  remedy  for  the  unification  of 
the  empire :  religion  should  form  the  link  between  king 
and  subjects.  If  Zoroastrianism,  of  which  the  king  was 
the  visible  representative,  should  be  proclaimed  as  the 

®  Plutarch,  Artaxerxes^  XX.  i. 

®  Ed.  Meyer,  G.  A.,  Ill,  p.  94. 

^0  We  have  a  somewhat  analogous  case  in  the  Turkish  empire.  At  the 
height  of  their  power,  the  Turks  were  rather  tolerant  towards  their  subjects 
and  did  not  impose  upon  them  their  religion  and  language.  Owing  to  this 
policy,  the  subject  nations  were  soon  reconciled  to  their  rule.  If  they  had 
not  been  tolerant,  the  European  Christian  nations  would  have  united 
themselves  against  them,  and  we  may  doubt  whether  they  would  have 
prevailed  over  a  united  Europe.  But  at  present  the  policy  that  was 
formerly  the  source  of  their  success,  is  the  very  cause  of  their  downfall. 


124’  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

supreme  religion  of  the  empire,  all  the  subjects  being 
enjoined  to  accept  it,  the  authority  of  the  king,  on  account 
of  its  religious  character,  would  be  respected  everywhere, 
and  the  common  cause  of  religion  would  ensure  the  loyalty 
of  the  subjects. 

However,  that  plan  was  not  feasible  without  funda¬ 
mentally  modifying  the  doctrines  of  the  Zoroastrian 
religion,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  purely  spiritual, 
without  images,  temples,  and  altars.  The  acceptance  of 
the  principles  of  this  religion,  which  forbade  the  worship 
of  idols  and  rejected  all  other  divine  beings  beside 
Ahuramazda  as  spurious  deities,  was  incompatible  with 
the  continuation  of  all  other  polytheistic  religions  through¬ 
out  the  Persian  empire.  The  introduction  of  such  a 
religion  could  not  be  made  compulsory  without  simul¬ 
taneously  oppressing  all  other  idolatrous  creeds.  Such 
a  measure  would  undoubtedly  have  been  the  cause  of 
a  general  uprising  among  the  polytheistic  subjects,  and 
unfailingly  would  have  caused  the  downfall  of  the  Persian 
empire.  The  people,  accustomed  from  immemorial  times 
to  the  worship  of  visible  gods,  were  incapable  of  compre¬ 
hending  a  religion  without  physical  representations.  This 
religion  could  not  appeal  to  the  people,  even  if  it  should 
modify  its  monotheistic  principle,  and  grant  to  them  the 
permission  to  continue  the  worship  of  their  own  deities 
as  manifestations  of  the  supreme  god  Ahuramazda.  There 
was  indeed  the  winged  circle,  which  the  Zoroastrians  were 
able  to  admit  as  a  religious  emblem  without  sacrificing 
any  principle.^^  But  no  temple  was  ever  erected  to 
Ahuramazda,  as  Ed.  Meyer  points  out,’^  even  after  the 


See  chapter  V. 


12  G.A.,  III,  p.  123. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 25 


Zoroastrian  religion  became  corrupt.  The  Zoroastrians 
seemed  to  have  held  and  strictly  adhered  to  the  principle 
that  the  God  of  heaven  and  earth  could  not  be  worshipped 
in  the  limited  space  of  a  housed'^  Besides,  the  simple 
worship  of  this  god,  consisting  in  keeping  up  the  Holy  Fire, 
had  nothing  alluring  and  attractive  for  the  people.  Yet 
the  Zoroastrian  religion  could  not  be  made  popular  without 
images,  temples,  and  altars. 

The  Daevas,  the  gods  of  the  old  Iranian  religion,  which 
Zoroaster  declared  to  be  spurious  deities,  were  at  a  later 
period,  but  already  in  the  time  of  Herodotus, introduced 
into  the  Zoroastrian  religion,  though  not  yet  represented 
by  images.  The  highest  among  these  Daevas  were  Anahita 
and  Mithra,  equivalent  to  the  deities  Ishtar  and  Shamash 
in  the  Babylonian  pantheon.  Anahita,  and  as  Marquart 
contends,^^  in  conjunction  with  Mithra,  were,  under  the 


The  same  idea  is  expressed  also  by  the  exilic  Isaiah  :  ‘The  heaven  is 
my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  footstool  ;  where  is  the  house  that  ye  built 
unto  me?  and  where  is  the  place  of  my  rest?’  (66.  i),  and  also  in  the 
pra3'^er  of  Solomon  :  ‘  Behold,  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot 
contain  thee  ;  how  much  less  the  house  that  I  have  builded  ’  (i  Kings  8.  27). 
We  need  not  see  in  this  idea  Persian  influence  or  vice  versa,  as  it  is  simple 
enough  to  originate  among  various  people  independently.  We  shall  further 
refer  to  the  fact  that  the  Babylonian  supreme  god  Anu  does  not  seem  to 
have  ever  possessed  a  centre  of  his  own,  and  it  may  be  due  to  the  same  idea. 

See  Herodotus  I,  131,  where  he  states  that  the  Persians  believed  in 
elementary  gods,  which  is  certainly  not  in  accordance  with  Zoroaster’s 
doctrines. 

Fundamente,  p.  37.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Plutarch,  Artaxerxes, 
XXIII,  7,  states  that  Artaxerxes  paid  homage  to  no  other  goddess  but  Hera. 
This  goddess  is  evidently  identical  with  Anahita,  though  the  latter  is 
identified  by  him  with  Artemis,  XII,  4.  We  need  not  assume  that  he 
contradicts  himself.  Anahita  has  been  identified  with  the  Babylonian 
goddess  Ishtar  who  appears  in  various  manifestations ;  as  Belit  tldnt, 
‘Mistress  of  the  gods’,  she  corresponds  to  Hera;  as  daughter  of  Anu,  to 
Pallas  Athene;  as  goddess  of  vegetation,  to  Demeter  and  also  Persephone  ; 


126  THE. BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


reign  of  Artaxcrxes  II,  selected  to  be  represented  as 
manifestations  of  Ahiiramazda.  Anahita  was  originally 
a  goddess  of  vegetation,  but  later  became  goddess  of 
fertility,  and  was  represented  with  all  the  attributes  of 
Ishtar.  The  main  feature  of  her  cult  was  prostitution.^® 
A  divinity  of  this  kind  strongly  appealed  to  the  sensual 
propensities  of  the  people,  and  was  readily  accepted 
everywhere  by  the  polytheistic  inhabitants  of  the  Persian 
empire  as  chief  deity  and  representative  of  the  supreme  god 
Ahuramazda.  If  Marquart’s  view,  which  seems  to  be 
corroborated  by  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  Artaxerxes, 
is  correct,  we  may  assume  that  the  Mithra-Feast  became 
about  the  same  time  the  chief  Persian  festival,  in  which 
the  king  used  to  get  drunk  and  performed  the  national 
dance  of  the  Persians. 

The  introduction  of  that  new  element  into  the  Zoroas- 
trian  religion  was  not  due  to  the  predilection  of  the  king 
for  Anahita.  This  was  done  as  a  political  measure  for  the 
consolidation  of  the  empire.  Hence  it  was  not  left  to 
the  free  will  of  the  people  whether  they  should  imitate 
the  example  set  by  the  king.  The  worship  of  that  goddess 
was  made  compulsory.  The  supremacy  of  Anahita  actually 
meant  the  supremacy  of  the  ruling  race.  Her  worship  was 
made  a  test  of  loyalty.  Those  who  refused  to  recognize 
her  were  marked  as  disloyal  subjects.  Marquart  is  un¬ 
questionably  right  in  seeing  in  the  erection  of  the  images 

as  sister  of  the  Sun-god,  to  Artemis;  as  goddess  of  fertility,  to  Aphrodite. 
All  these  attributes  may  have  been  taken  over  by  Anahita.  Plutarch  may 
have  not  known  it,  and  speaking  from  a  Greek  religious  point  of  view, 
differentiates  between  Anahita  of  Susa  who  may  have  been  worshipped 
as  Hera,  and  between  Anahita  of  Ecbatana  who  may  have  been  identified 
with  Artemis. 

See  Justi,  History,  p.  95,  and  Ed.  Meyer,  G.  A.,  Ill,  p.  126  f. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  127 


of  that  goddess  in  all  the  provincial  capitals  of  the  Persian 
empire  a  royal  law  enjoining  on  all  the  inhabitants  the 
worship  of  Anahitad^ 

Did  that  reform  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion  produce 
the  desired  effect  of  more  firmly  uniting  the  various  races 
of  the  Persian  empire  ?  This  may  or  may  not  have 
been  the  case.  We  know  only  that  it  did  not  prevent 
that  empire’s  final  downfall.  But  we  may  reasonably 
doubt  whether  even  united  and  in  their  full  vigour 
the  Persians  could  have  prevailed  against  the  military 
genius  of  their  conqueror.  However,  that  innovation 
was  of  paramount  importance  for  the  dissemination 
of  the  Zoroastiian  religion.  We  may  assume  that  the 
successful  introduction  of  the  latter,  and  in  its  wake  of 
the  Persian  language,  among  the  Turanians  in  Armenia 
and  Cappadocia^®  was  chiefly  due  to  this  reform  of 
Artaxerxes  II.  In  Armenia,  Anahita  had  temples  at 
Artaxata  and  Yashtishat  in  Tauranitis,  and  especially  in. 
Erez  in  Akilisene,  the  whole  region  of  which  was  con¬ 
secrated  to  her.^^  Here  she  had  a  golden  statue,  and 
Strabo  states  that  the  daughters  of  the  noble  families  used 
to  go  there  and  prostitute  themselves  to  strangers  before 
their  marriage.^®  She  was  worshipped  likewise  in  Pontus 
and  Cilicia.^^  In  Lydia  she  left  numerous  traces  of  her 
presence,  and  became  amalgamated  with  Cybele.^^  The 
Zoroastrian  religion,  which  even  among  the  Iranians  could 
be  kept  in  purity  only  in  a  limited  circle,  could  hardly 

17  Fundamente^  p.  37. 

See  ibid.^  p.  38,  and  especially  the  article  ‘Armenia  (Zoroastrian)  ’  in 
Hastings’  Encyclup. 

See  the  article  ‘Anaitis’,  ibid. 

20  Strabo’s  Geography^  XI,  14,  16.  21  XI,  8  ;  XII,  3. 

22  See  Rev.  ArchcoL,  3rd  Series,  VI,  107  ;  VII,  156. 


128  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


have  gained  adherents  outside  of  Iran  without  undergoing 
a  complete  change.  Formerly  there  was  a  gulf  between 
the  popular  religion  and  that  of  Zoroaster,  as  the  common 
people,  though  Zoroastrians,  by  no  means  abandoned  the 
old  Iranian  Daevas.-^  This  gulf  was  now  being  bridged 
over  by  the  innovation  of  Artaxerxes  II,  which  sanctioned 
the  popular  religious  conceptions,  and  introduced  them 
into  the  system  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion.  Both  Zoroas¬ 
trianism  and  Christianity  succeeded  in  gaining  adherents 
and  establishing  themselves  by  conforming  more  or  less 
to  the  ideas  and  customs  of  the  people. 

Jackson,  in  his  Zoroaster^  observes:  ‘Tradition,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Brahman  Yasht,  asserts  that  Ardashir  the  Kayan, 
whom  they  call  Vohuman,  son  of  Spen-dat,  and  whom  we 
know  as  Ardashir  Dirazdast,  or  “the  long-handed”,  is  the 
one  “who  made  the  religion  current  in  the  whole  world”. 
Actual  history  agrees  with  this,  in  so  far  as  it  shows  that 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  or  “  long-handed  ”,  was  an  ardent 
Zoroastrian  ruler.  From  the  pages  of  history  we,  further¬ 
more,  learn  that  by  the  time  of  the  last  Achaemenians, 
at  least,  Zoroastrianism  is  practically  acknowledged  to  have 
become  the  national  religion  of  the  Iranians  In  the 


23  It  is  seen  by  the  Persian  proper  names  compounded  with  the  names 
of  various  Iranian  gods,  as  Ed.  Meyer  points  out,  G.  A.,  Ill,  p.  126. 

2^  P.  133  f,  A  similar  view  is  expressed  by  Darmesteter,  Avesta,  p.  Iv  : 
‘New  progress  marked  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus’.  He  goes 
even  so  far  as  to  contend  :  ‘  It  was  he  who  blended  the  worship  of  Anat- 
Mylitta  with  that  of  the  Iranian  Anahita  (the  ascription  of  that  innovation 
to  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Stromata  I)  must  rest 
on  a  clerical  error,  as  in  the  time  of  Herodotus,  who  wrote  under  Longi¬ 
manus,  the  worship  of  Anahita  had  already  been  introduced  into  Persia)’ 
(note  3).  But  Darmesteter’s  contention  rests  on  a  logical  error.  Berosus 
(apud  Clem.)  does  not  state  that  the  worship  of  Anahita  was  introduced 
by  Artaxerxes  II.  He  merely  states  that  the  latter  was  the  first  who 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  129 


light  of  our  observations,  the  matter  will  be  viewed 
differently.  The  later  Persian  scholars,  and  even  the 
compilers  of  the  Zend-Avesta  which,  as  Renan  observes, 
is  a  Talmud  rather  than  a  Bible,^^  had  no  more  exact 
knowledge  of  Persian  chronology  than  the  Talmudic  Rabbis. 
The  tradition  of  the  dissemination  of  the  Zoroastrian 
religion  being  due  to  Ardashir  is  undoubtedly  correct,  but 
the  king  of  that  name  was  not  Artaxerxes  Longimanus, 
but  his  grandson  Artaxerxes  Mnemon.  Besides,  we  cannot 
find  any  historical  source  that  presents  the  former  king 
as  an  ardent  Zoroastrian.  Concerning  the  reference  of 
Brahman  Yasht  to  Vohuman  son  of  Spen-dat  we  may 
perhaps  see  in  it  an  obscure  tradition  referring  to  Haman 
fLjiavos)  son  of  Hamdatha.^® 

taught  the  Persians  to  worship  anthromorphic  images,  in  erecting  statues 
of  Anahita.  Darmesteter  evidently  overlooked  the  fact  that  Herodotus 
himself,  who  informs  us  of  the  worship  of  Anahita  by  the  Persians,  dis¬ 
tinctly  states  that  the  Persians  knew  of  no  images  of  the  gods.  Moreover, 
the  same  statement  is  given  in  his  Exhortation  to  the  Greeks^  V,  i,  and  it  is 
unlikely  that  he  should  have  committed  twice  the  same  error. 

25  In  his  History^  VII,  14. 

25  Vohuman  is  rendered  into  Greek  as  Omanos,  as  Strabo,  in  his 
Geography,  XI,  14,  states:  ‘There  were  founded  both  the  sanctuaries  of 
Anaitis  and  of  the  associated  gods,  Omanos  and  Anadatos'.  The  latter 
names  remarkably  resemble  Haman  and  Hamdatha.  Strabo  further 
writes:  ‘These  things  were  customary  in  the  sanctuaries  of  Anaitis  and 
Omanos  ’  (XI,  16).  The  eleventh  Persian  month  Vohumanah  is  called  in 
Cappadocian  'CLojxavia  (Lagarde,  Purim,  p.  33).  Spenda-dat  means  ‘given 
by  the  Holy  Spirit’  (Justi,  Iran.  Namenb.).  Haoma,  which  is  the  most 
sacred  and  most  powerful  offering,  comprising  the  life  of  the  whole  vegetable 
kingdom,  and  by  drinking  of  it  man  will  become  immortal  on  the  Day  of 
Resurrection  (Darmesteter,  l.c.,  p,  69)  may  have  been  the  symbol  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Thus  Hdm-data  and  Spendadat  may  be  synonymous  names. 
Pseudo-Smerdis,  whom  Darius  in  his  Behistun-inscription  calls  Gaumata, 
is  by  Ctesias  called  Sphenda-dates  (see  chapter  IX).  Thus  it  seems  that 
Spenda-dat  is  a  priestly  title,  and  not  a  proper  name.  In  the  light  of  these 
observations,  Cassel’s  view,  quoted  above  (chapter  II),  that  Haman  and  his 

H.  K 


130  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

The  limited  circle  of  the  true  Zoroastrians  no  doubt 
resented  that  innovation  and  corruption  of  the  Persian 
religion,  and  must  have  denounced  it  as  heresy.  But  the 
latter  may  have  submitted  sooner  or  later.  We  cannot 
say  to  what  extent  they  went  in  their  zeal  for  the  pre¬ 
servation  of  the  purity  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion.  They 
may  or  may  not  have  sacrificed  themselves  in  their  oppo¬ 
sition  to  that  innovation.  But  we  can  with  all  certainty 
assert  that  the  only  part  of  the  populace  which  absolutely 
refused  to  comply  with  the  royal  will  and  become  idolaters 
were  the  strictly  religious  Jews.  The  latter  were,  of  course, 
marked  as  disloyal  subjects.  Defying  the  authority  of 
the  empire  was  nothing  short  of  high  treason,  and  could 
not  be  tolerated.  The  officials  had  to  enforce  obedience 
to  the  royal  decree,  without  exempting  any  person,  and 
could  not  grant  special  privileges  to  the  Jews. 

We  have  already  observed  that  as  long  as  the  Persian 
religion  was  undefiled  by  idolatrous  practices,  the  Jews 
in  all  probability  boasted  in  the  presence  of  the  Persians 
and  their  officials  that  their  own  religion  was  closely  akin 
to  or  identical  with  that  of  Zoroaster.  The  Persians  could 
not  but  be  flattered  by  the  compliment  paid  to  their  own 
religion,  it  being  of  such  a  high  character  that  non-Iranians 
pride  themselves  in  having  similar  religious  conceptions. 
This  established  good  will  and  friendship  between  Persians 
and  Jews.  The  favours  granted  to  the  Jews  by  the 
Persian  kings  may  have  been  due  to  that  fact.  Now  the 
condition  was  different.  In  refusing  to  worship  Anahita, 
the  Jews  showed  that  the  Persian  religion  was  not  good 
enough  for  them.  This  could  not  fail  to  arouse  the  hatred 

father  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  the  Magians,  is  rather  probable.  Their 
names  may  have  been  priestly  titles  and  not  proper  names. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  13I 

of  the  gentiles.  It  was  of  course  the  cause  of  arguments, 
and  frequently  led  to  personal  attacks.  The  officials  who 
had  continually  to  punish  the  Jews  for  their  stubbornness, 
and  to  settle  the  quarrels  between  them  and  their  enemies, 
considered  them  a  constant  source  of  annoyance,  a  turbu¬ 
lent,  disloyal  element  among  a  peaceful  and  loyal  populace. 

This  was  a  period  of  religious  persecutions,  similar  to 
those  the  Jews  experienced  under  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  frequently  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Yet  the 
former  persecutions  were  somewhat  different  from  the  latter. 
The  Jews  were  not  ordered  ‘to  forsake  their  own  laws  ’ 
but  to  recognize  the  supremacy  of  Anahita,  and  to  worship 
her.  The  latter  was  the  more  dangerous  to  the  Jewish 
religion.  Seeing  in  the  worship  of  Anahita  a  mere  formality, 
many  Jews  pretended  compliance  with  the  will  of  the  king 
without  regarding  such  a  step  as  apostasy  from  Judaism. 
These  Jews,  though  bitterly  resenting  the  force  that  com¬ 
pelled  them  to  pay  respect  to  idols  they  abominated, 
practically  did  not  suffer  any  inconvenience,  and  still 
remained  on  friendly  terms  with  their  neighbours.  The 
only  victims  of  those  persecutions  were  the  strictly 
religious  Jews. 

We  have  seen  that  in  post-exilic  times  the  only  mark 
of  ‘Jews’  (DniiT)  was  the  rejection  of  idols,  and  under 
Persian  rule,  that  mark  was  obliterated.  The  business 
documents  of  the  Persian  period  show  that  a  large  number 
of  Jews  of  that  time  were  engaged  in  commerce.  We  may 
well  assume  that  this  was  the  only  course  open  to  them 
for  providing  means  of  subsistence.  A  nation,  as  a  rule, 
is  not  disposed  to  admit  large  numbers  of  foreigners  into 
its  country  to  take  possession  of  the  soil  and  to  settle  as 

I  Macc.  I.  41. 


K  % 


132  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


peasants,  unless  as  bondmen.  And  not  every  man  is  able 
to  be  an  artisan.  But  primitive  nations  readily  welcome 
people  who  serve  as  middlemen  between  producer  and  con¬ 
sumer.  Men  of  that  calling  do  not  live  crowded  together, 
but  settle,  whenever  afforded  an  opportunity,  in  localities 
where  competition  is  not  too  keen.  Thus  scattered  in 
small  numbers  throughout  the  provinces  of  the  Persian 
empire,  the  Jews  were  scarcely  noticeable,  as  long  as  they 
peacefully  attended  to  their  own  affairs.  The  succeeding 
generations  of  the  immigrants  were  in  all  probability  not 
different  in  language,  dress,  habits,  and  many  even  in  their 
names,  from  the  people  among  whom  they  dwelt.  Now 
and  then  some  neighbours  learned  incidentally  that  those 
people  had  a  peculiar  creed  of  their  own.  But  a  casual 
observer  would  have  held  them  to  belong  to  the  strict 
Zoroastrians.  Even  the  keen-eyed  Herodotus  who  noticed 
every  feature  of  the  Oriental  peoples,  did  not  know  the 
Jews  as  adherents  of  a  special  creed.  With  the  corruption 
of  the  Persian  religion,  the  Jews  were  thrown  back  into  the 
former  state  under  Babylonian  rule.  Those  who  refused 
to  participate  in  the  worship  of  Anahita,  pleaded  that  the 
faith  they  professed  prohibited  the  worship  of  idols,  and 
thus  became  known  as  adherents  of  a  different  creed.  A 
barrier  was  now  being  erected  between  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
The  former  could  not  faithfully  adhere  to  their  religion, 
without  being  recognized  as  ‘Jews’  (D^niiT). 

If  there  is  any  reliance  on  historical  analogy,  we  may 
accept  it  as  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  innovation  of 
Artaxerxes  II  introduced  into  the  Persian  religion  was 
the  cause  of  Jewish  persecutions.  It  would  be  of  no  con¬ 
sequence  whether  there  were  records  testifying  to  those 
events  or  not.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  real 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I33 


sufferers  were  the  zealous,  pious  Jews,  who  formed  only 
a  very  small  portion  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  perse¬ 
cutions  were,  in  all  probability,  occasioned  at  the  time 
of  the  high  festivals  of  Anahita,^^  when  the  Jews,  in  refusing 
to  participate  in  the  festivities,  sharply  contrasted  with  the 
rest  of  the  people.  Only  those  denounced  by  malignant 
neighbours  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  Jews 
settled  in  small  towns  and  villages  where  there  were  no 
sanctuaries  of  Anahita,  could  easily  under  some  excuse 
stay  away  from  the  festivities  without  exposing  themselves 
to  any  danger.  The  hatred  caused  by  the  refusal  of  the 
pious  Jews  to  recognize  the  divinity  of  that  goddess 
naturally  reacted  upon  all  the  Jews,  who  were  looked  at 
askance  by  the  people  and  the  authorities.  However,  if 
they  held  their  peace,  and  did  not  express  any  opinion 
averse  to  the  Persian  religion,  they  could  not  be  legally 
punished.  The  execution  of  a  number  of  Jews  in  the 
various  centres  of  the  Persian  empire  was  not  so  important 
an  event  as  to  be  recorded  by  historians. 

But  we  have,  as  it  would  appear,  some  record  of  those 
Jewish  persecutions  by  the  Persians.  Hecataeus,  according 
to  Flavius  Josephus,  in  his  Polemics  against  Apion,  states 
that  the  Persians  erected  temples  and  altars  in  Palestine, 
and  attempted  to  turn  the  Jews  away  from  their  religion.^^ 
This  statement  refers  of  course  to  the  reform  of  the 
Zoroastrian  religion  by  Artaxerxes  II.^®  The  historian 
Graetz,  in  his  History  of  the  Jewsf^  describes  that  event 

See  chapter  VII.  Josephus,  Contra  Apionem,  I. 

Willrich  (^Judaica,  p.  92)  does  not  believe  this  statement,  and  naively 
asks:  ‘Who  should  have  attempted  in  the  Persian  period  to  do  so?’ 
He  ought  to  have  read  Graetz’s  History  of  the  Jews  and  his  references  to 
Berosus  before  dealing  with  Jewish  history. 

German  edition  II,  p.  208,  and  his  notes,  pp.  412  If. ;  Engl,  edition  I, 
p.  408. 


134  'i'HE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

as  follows:  ‘The  relations  between  the  Judeans  and  the 
Persians  were  at  the  same  time  somewhat  disturbed.  The 
latter,  influenced  by  foreign  example,  began  to  practise 
idolatry.  The  goddess  of  love,  who  under  the  different 
names  Beltis,  Mylitta,  or  Aphrodite,  was  constantly  brought 
under  the  notice  of  the  ‘Persians,  exercised  a  powerful 
influence  upon  them.  The  victories  they  had  achieved, 
and  the  riches  they  had  acquired  inclined  them  to  sensual 
pleasures.  They  were,  therefore,  easily  enthralled  by  the 
goddess  and  induced  to  serve  and  worship  her.  As  soon 
as  they  had  adopted  this  deity,  they  gave  her  a  Persian 
name,  and  included  her  in  their  mythology.  Artaxerxes  II 
sanctioned  her  worship,  and  had  images  of  her  placed 
everywhere  in  his  great  kingdom,  in  the  principal  cities 
Babylon,  Susa,  and  Ecbatana,  as  well  as  in  Damascus  and 
Sardes,  and  in  all  the  towns  of  Persia  and  Bactria  .  .  . 
Thus  the  spiritual  link  which  had  bound  the  Persians  to 
the  followers  of  Judaism— their  common  abhorrence  of 
idolatry — was  broken.  .  .  .  Having  compelled  his  own 
people  to  bow  down  to  this  newly  adopted  goddess  of  love, 
Artaxerxes  tried,  as  it  appears,  to  force  her  worship  upon 
the  Judeans  ;  the  latter  were  cruelly  treated  in  order  to 
make  them  renounce  their  religion,  but  they  chose  the 
severest  punishment,  and  even  death  rather  than  abjure 
the  faith  of  their  fathers.’  This  account  of  that  event, 
though  not  exact  in  details  in  the  light  of  our  investiga¬ 
tions,  is  in  the  main  correct.  Graetz  did  not  see  the  real 
object  of  the  introduction  into  the  Persian  religion  of  the 
cult  of  that  goddess,  nor  the  reason  for  enforcing  her 
worship  upon  the  Jews.  It  was  certainly  not  due  to  a 
mere  fancy  of  the  king  to  make  her  worship  obligatory  on 
all  inhabitants  of  the  Persian  empire.  The  departure  from 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  EIGHT  OF  HISTORY  135 


the  policy  of  his  predecessors  not  to  interfere  with  the 
creeds  of  their  subjects  was  urged  upon  this  king  for 
political  reasons. 

However,  Hecataeus  was  acquainted  with  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  that  event  only  as  far  as  it  concerned  the  Jews 
of  the  province  Judea.  Here  was  the  centre  of  the  cult 
of  Jahveh.  The  whole  province  almost  exclusively  in¬ 
habited  by  a  people  which  detested  idolatry  was  forced 
to  the  worship  of  idols.^^  The  disturbances  caused  by 
these  proceedings  must  have  been  sensational,  and  excited 
wide-spread  interest.  Egypt,  which  a  few  years  before  the 
accession  of  Artaxerxes  II  recovered  its  independence  from 
the  Persian  empire,  and  was  continually  in  a  state  of  war 
with  the  latter,  must  have  watched  with  keen  satisfaction 
the  unsettled  conditions  in  the  neighbourland,  and  we  may 
reasonably  conjecture  that  it  incited  the  Jews  to  rise 
against  their  oppressors  and  promised  them  its  assistance. 
But  the  Jews  may  have  profited  by  the  experiences  of  their 
past,  well  knowing  that  the  friendship  of  Egypt  was  just 
as  responsible  for  the  downfall  of  the  states  of  Israel  and 
Judah  as  the  armies  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia, and 
preferred  to  suffer  rather  than  to  rise  in  arms  and  ‘  to  trust 
in  the  staff  of  this  broken  reed,  on  Egypt  Hecataeus 

82  As  to  the  Samaritans,  though  they  were  worshippers  of  Jahveh,  they 
were  not  yet  pure  monotheists,  and  still  continued  ‘  to  serve  their  gods  and 
to  fear  Jahveh  ’,  as  the  author  of  Kings  described  their  religion.  At  any 
rate,  their  religious  conceptions  were  not  different  from  those  of  the  former 
Israelitish  inhabitants  (see  2  Kings  17.  34-41).  The  change  in  their 
religious  conceptions  belongs  to  a  later  period. 

88  Both  prophets,  Isaiah  (20.  5,  6  ;  30.  3,  4)  and  Jeremiah  (37,  7),  warned 
the  Judeans  not  to  rely  upon  the  promises  of  the  Egyptians,  and  not  to  rise 
against  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  and  their  state  would  have  survived 
if  they  had  accepted  this  advice. 

8^  3  Kings  18.  21. 


536  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

who  flourished  in  the  fourth  century  B.  C.  E.,  and  lived 
in  Egypt  as  the  close  friend  of  Ptolemy  I,  was  a  reliable 
authority  on  the  events  of  that  period  in  Judea.  But  he 
had  no  information  concerning  the  same  kind  of  perse¬ 
cutions  in  the  interior  provinces  of  the  Persian  empire. 
Here  the  persecutions  were  not  directed  against  a  people 
but  against  individuals  who  resisted  the  royal  decree.  If 
numbers  of  them  were  on  certain  occasions  imprisoned 
and  executed,  events  of  this  kind  were  not  so  rare  as  to 
attract  special  attention. 

While  we  have  no  external  testimony  for  the  latter 
persecutions,  we  are  fortunately  in  possession  of  a  biblical 
record  testifying  to  that  effect.  We  find  such  a  record, 
evidently  based  on  a  true  tradition,  in  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
in  the  third  chapter.  The  narrative,  embellished  with 
miraculous  and  anachronistic  features,  states :  ‘  The  king 
Nebuchadnezzar  made  a  golden  image  of  large  dimensions 
and  set  it  up  in  the  Babylonian  city  of  Dura.  Then  he 
assembled  the  princes,  the  governors,  and  the  captains, 
the  judges,  the  treasurers,  the  counsellors,  the  sheriffs,  and 
all  the  rulers  of  the  provinces,  to  be  present  at  the  dedica¬ 
tion  of  that  image  and  the  performance  of  the  rites.  Then 
he  proclaimed  by  heralds  that  all  people,  nations,  and 
languages  should  fall  down  and  worship  the  golden  image 
at  the  sound  of  the  music  of  the  solemn  service ;  and 
whosoever  should  not  comply  with  the  command,  should 
the  same  hour  be  cast  into  the  midst  of  a  burning  fiery 
furnace.  Therefore  all  the  people  did  as  the  king  com¬ 
manded.  But  Chaldeans  came  and  accused  certain  Jews 
to  have  no  regard  for  the  king’s  commands,  refusing  to 
serve  his  gods  and  to  worship  the  golden  image.  Then 
these  Jews  were  brought  before  the  king,  but  even  in  his 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  T37 


presence  they  remained  stubborn,  still  refusing  to  do  his 
command.  Then  they  were  bound  and  cast  into  the 
burning  fiery  furnace,  but  the  fire  had  no  power  over 
them.’ 

Extremely  divergent  opinions  are  held  concerning 
the  historicity,  contents,  and  tendencies  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel.  But  there  can  be  no  disputing  that  its  author 
was  of  high  intellect  and  well  acquainted  with  Oriental 
customs.  This  account,  however,  seems  so  singular  as  to 
reflect  upon  the  intellect  of  its  author.  Does  it  stand 
to  reason  that  any  polytheist  should  ever  have  refused 
to  worship  an  idol,  unless  threatened  by  being  cast  into 
a  fiery  furnace  ?  But  divesting  this  account  of  all  ana¬ 
chronistic  and  miraculous  elements,  it  presents  a  plain 
historical  tradition  of  the  innovation  of  Artaxerxes  II 
introduced  into  the  Zoroastrian  religion ;  it  describes  how 
this  king — as  ruler  of  Babylon  styled  Nebuchadnezzar — 
erected  a  golden  irgage  of  Anahita  in  Babylonia,  how  he 
forced  the  Zoroastrians  under  the  penalty  of  death  to  bow 
down  to  it,  and  the  royal  command  was  complied  with 
by  all  except  the  strictly  religious  Jews.  This  tradition 
presents  the  antecedents  of  and  the  prologue  to  the  Book 
of  Esther.  It  bears  at  the  same  time  testimony  to  the 
monotheistic  character  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion  and 
the  high  religious  principles  of  its  adherents,  that  only  the 
choice  between  life  and  death  compelled  them  to  submit 
to  the  royal  will.  We  may  well  assume  that  they  deeply 
resented  this  command  and  secretly  sympathized  with  its 
Jewish  victims.  How  exact  in  some  points  this  tradition 
is  may  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  this  golden  image  is  said 
to  have  been  set  up  in  Dura  —  Der  —  Durilu^  in  North 

36  Dan.  3.  1-31. 


138  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

Babylonia,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Babylon.  This  locality 
was  from  ancient  times  the  centre  of  Ishtar  with  whose 
attributes  Anahita  was  invested.  Just  as  the  supreme 
Babylonian  god  Anu  never  possessed  a  centre  of  his  own,^® 
but  was  always  worshipped  in  conjunction  with  his 
daughter  Ishtar,  who  was  the  representative  of  her  father, 
so  Ahuramazda  was  worshipped  through  his  manifestation 
Anahita,  and  never  possessed  a  temple  of  his  own.  There 
was  indeed  a  burning  fiery  furnace.  But  it  was  not  for 
the  purpose  of  casting  into  it  the  recalcitrants  to  the 
worship  of  Anahita.  This  was  the  Holy  Fire,  the  symbol 
of  Ahuramazda.  The  Holy  Fire  would  have  been  defiled 
by  casting  into  it  human  beings.  In  this  tradition  we  thus 
have  an  authentic  record  of  that  event,  and  of  the  Jewish 
persecutions  in  the  East  of  that  period. 

It  is  of  interest  to  find  that  the  Talmud  regards  the 
danger  impending  over  the  Jews  as  punishment  for  their 
transgression  in  having  submitted  to  the  worship  of  the 
image  described  in  the  Book  of  Daniel.  It  is  not  im¬ 
possible  that  the  Talmud  had  some  dim  tradition  as  to 
the  connexion  of  those  two  events.  It  is  stated  :  ‘  The 

Jews  of  that  period  deserved  destruction  for  having  bowed 
down  to  the  image  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar ;  but  as 
they  merely  pretended  to  worship  it,  God  intended  to 
scare  them  as  a  punishment  for  their  cowardice.’ 

The  city  of  Erech  was  properly  the  centre  of  Nana-Ish/ar,  not  of  Anu. 

Megillah  12  a.  But  the  Rabbis,  led  astray  by  Daniel’s  chronology, 
believed  that  the  event  of  Purim  occurred  within  the  seventy  years  of  the 
captivity,  and  that  Ahasuerus  reigned  not  long  after  the  death  of  Nebuchad¬ 
nezzar  (cf.  ibid.  16  a). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 39 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  author  of  the  reform — The  success  of  the  reform  among  the 
Persians — The  resistance  of  the  Jews — The  contrary  effect  of  the  per¬ 
secutions  upon  them — Their  plea — Esther’s  relationship  to  Mordecai — His 
identity  among  gentiles — The  necessity  of  his  having  some  position  at  the 
court — His  discovery  of  a  conspiracy — His  attitude  towards  the  persecuted 
Jews —  H  is  refusal  to  bow  down  to  the  prime  minister — His  confession  of 
being  a  Jew — The  prime  minister’s  hesitation  to  punish  him — His  action 
and  the  creed  of  the  Jews — The  significance  of  the  casting  of  lots — Tlie 
simultaneity  of  Purim  with  a  non-Jewish  festival— The  epagomena — Haman’s 
difficult  task — The  Jews  in  Palestine — Haman’s  accusation — His  aim — The 
sanguinary  style  of  his  decree — His  promise  of  ten  thousand  talents  — 
His  wealth — The  king’s  investigations — The  early  promulgation  of  the  decree 
— Its  being  reconsidered  under  the  influence  of  wine. 


In  the  preceding  chapter  we  learned  from  the  pages 
of  history  that  there  was  a  Jewish  persecution  under  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  II.  Turning  to  the  Book  of  Esther, 
we  are  confronted  by  the  fact  that  the  chief  executive  of 
that  king  was  an  inveterate  enemy  of  the  Jews.  We  may 
thus  safely  conclude  that  those  Jewish  persecutions  occurred 
at  a  time  when  this  Jewish  enemy  stood  at  the  head  of 
the  Persian  government.  But  the  persecutions  could  not 
have  been  due  to  a  personal  enmity  of  the  prime  minister 
towards  the  Jews.  They  were  merely  the  outcofne  of  the 
greatest  movement  in  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Persians  since 
Zoroaster.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  that  this  minister 


140  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


occupied  an  extraordinarily  high  position,  without  seeing 
any  cause  for  his  elevation.  Considering  all  these  facts, 
we  are  justified  in  looking  for  a  logical  connexion  between 
the  innovation  of  Artaxerxes  II,  the  exalted  position  of 
his  prime  minister,  and  the  enmity  of  the  latter  towards 

the  Jews.  This  connexion  we  find  in  seeing  in  that  prime 

* 

minister  who  so  severely  persecuted  those  who  did  not 
willingly  submit  to  the  Zoroastrian  reform  the  very  author 
and  originator  of  this  idea.  The  author  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  had  no  intention  of  writing  Persian  history.  His 
sole  aim  was  to  explain  the  origin  of  Purim.  He,  there¬ 
fore,  wrote  only  the  facts  absolutely  necessary  for  our 
information,  ‘  of  that  which  they  had  seen  concerning  this 
matter,  and  which  had  come  unto  them  As  to  the  other 
facts  he  refers  us  to  ‘  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the 
kings  of  Media  and  Persia’.  Moreover,  the  Book  being 
compiled  for  the  Jews  of  the  Persian  empire,  the  author 
could  not  touch  upon  the  antecedents  of  that  event,  and 
refer  to  the  cause  of  that  prime  minister’s  elevation,  the 
corruption  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion,  and  the  resistance 
of  the  Jews  to  that  worship,  without  deeply  insulting  the 
adherents  of  that  religion  and  endangering  thereby  the 
existence  of  the  Jews. 

*  The  plan  of  reforming  the  Persian  religion,  by  which 
it  should  gain  popularity  and  be  more  easily  disseminated 
among  the  subjects  of  the  Persian  empire,  certainly  did 
not  originate  in  the  muddled  brains  of  an  effeminate 
monarch,  but  was  devised,  as  already  suggested,  by  one 
of  the  royal  councillors.  It  was  no  doubt  a  very  clever 
device  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  Zoroastrianism  as 
the  religion  of  the  Persian  empire.  However,  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  that  innovation  was  extremely  dangerous. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I4I 


Failure  to  realize  it  might  have  been  disastrous  to  the 
dynasty,  or  at  least,  to  the  king.  The  Holy  Wars,  described 
in  the  Sacred  Books  of  the  Zoroastrians,  which,  according 
to  Jackson  and  others,^  occurred  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.E., 
could  not  have  been  forgotten  in  the  course  of  two 
centuries.  The  great  festival  of  the  Magophonia  established 
to  commemorate  the  overthrow  of  Pseudo-Smerdis,  who 
evidently  had  intended  to  abolish  the  Zoroastrian  religion 
and  to  reintroduce  the  old  Iranian  popular  belief,  was,  as 
Ctesias  informs  us,^  still  celebrated  at  that  period.  Some 
satraps,  under  the  pretext  of  defending  the  purity  of  the 
Zoroastrian  religion,  might  have  caused  an  insurrection.^ 
The  plan  could  not  have  met  with  the  unanimous  approval 
of  the  privy  council.  The  strict  Zoroastrians  - could  not 
have  been  a  party  to  the  corruption  of  their  religion,  and 
naturally  advised  against  that  reform.  The  biblical  tradi¬ 
tion  discussed  above  shows  that  the  nobility  and  the 
officials  were  bitterly  opposed  to  that  innovation,  and 
submitted  to  it  only  under  the  penalty  of  death.  Many 
officials,  though  indifferent  to  religious  principles,  may  have 
shrunk  from  being  associated  in  the  execution  of  that  plan, 
knowing  well  that,  if  it  should  fail  and  cause  disaster,  the 


^  Jackson,  Zoroaster,  p.  174  ;  Alfred  Jeremias  holds  the  same  opinion 
{The  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of  the  Ancient  East,  I,  pp.  161  ff.)  that 
‘Zoroaster’s  theology  dates  from  the  sixth  century’. 

2  Ctesias,  Persica,  15. 

3  We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  letter  of  Cyrus  to  the  Lacedae¬ 
monians,  in  which  he  boasted  of  being  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
Magi,  is  not  without  significance.  The  Lacedaemonians  had  no  concern 
whether  Cyrus  knew  more  of  the  religious  doctrines  than  Artaxerxes.  But 
he  meant  to  indicate  that  in  his  enterprise  he  could  reckon  upon  the  assistance 
of  the  priesthood  and  the  ‘  Church  ’  party  (see  chapter  IV,  n.  21).  Ardashir, 
who  overthrew  the  empire  of  the  Philhellenic  Parthians  and  founded  the 
New-Persian  empire  was  a  Magus  (Darmesteter,  1.  c,,  p.  55). 


142  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


king  would  hold  them  responsible,  and  willingly  sacrifice 
them,  to  appease  the  anger  of  the  people,  as  usually 
happens. 

Impressed  by  the  magnitude  of  the  plan,  and  being 
convinced  by  the  reasons  advanced,  that  it  was  the  best 
remedy  for  the  prevention  of  the  empire’s  dissolution, 
Artaxerxes  entrusted  the  execution  of  the  plan  to  its 
author.  Such  a  sweeping  and  far-reaching  plan  could  not 
have  been  carried  through  by  a  minister  with  limited 
powers.  The  satraps  and  governors  of  the  provinces  who 
were  not  favourably  inclined  towards  the  innovation  might 
have  interfered  with  his  ordinances,  and  ignored  them. 
The  royal  princes  might  have  been  too  proud  to  receive 
orders  from  an  inferior  in  rank.  Therefore,  committed  to 
that  policy,  the  king  was  bound  to  bestow  upon  this 
minister  the  highest  rank,  exalting  him  over  all  princes, 
grandees,  satraps,  and  governors  of  the  empire.  Thus  it  was 
not  a  favour,  but  a  grave  task,  conferred  upon  this  councillor. 
By  his  elevation  he  was  made  responsible  for  the  success 
of  his  advice.  If  the  contrary  of  his  intentions  should 
occur,  and  the  policy  inaugurated  by  him  should  cause 
insurrections,  he  was  utterly  ruined.  This  councillor,  of 
Esthers,  i.  course,  we  identify  with  ‘  Haman,  the  son  of  Hammedatha, 
whom  the  king  promoted  and  advanced,  and  set  his  seat 
above  all  the  princes  that  were  with  him 

This  councillor,  however, appears  to  have  been  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  religious  sentiments  of  the  Persian 
common  people.  The  Iranians,  though  Zoroastrians  and 
not  worshippers  of  anthropomorphic  images,  never  entirely 
abandoned  the  gods  of  the  old  popular  belief.  This  fact 
is  borne  out  by  the  numerous  Persian  proper  names  of  the 
sixth  and  fifth  centuries,  which  are  compounded  with 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  143 

names  of  old  Iranian  deities.^  The  close  intercourse  with 
the  Babylonians,  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  other  polytheistic 
nations  for  a  considerable  period  was  not  without  influence 
upon  the  religious  conception  of  the  Iranians.  The  latter 
became  gradually  reconciled  to  the  idea  of  representations 
of  the  divine  beings  in  which  they  continued  to  believe. 
Therefore  the  latter  did  not  meet  with  any  serious  opposi¬ 
tion  among  the  Iranians.  The  strict  Zoroastrians  represented 
by  the  intellectual  class,  and  many  of  the  dignitaries,  as 
it  seems,  though  of  considerable  influence,  formed  only 
a  small  portion  of  the  population,  as  Zoroaster’s  religion 
was  too  spiritual  to  attract  real  converts.  None  of  them 
were  courageous  enough  to  raise  the  standard  of  rebellion 
for  the  religious  cause.  The  polytheistic  nations  of  the 
empire,  which  regarded  the  ruling  Iranians  as  enemies  of 
the  gods,  could  not  but  be  pleased  with  the  religious 
change. 

Nevertheless,  the  success  of  this  reform  was  not  quite 
complete.  Resistance  arose  among  a  part  of  the  population 
with  which  the  prime  minister  never  reckoned.  In  his 
ofiicial  career,  the  Jews  could  not  have  been  unknown  to 
him,  but  like  all  the  Persians  who  came  in  contact  with 
them,  he  looked  upon  their  religion  as  a  variety  of  Zoro¬ 
astrianism,  and  was  not  interested  in  finding  out  its  exact 
nature.  The  Jews  for  their  own  sake  had  good  reason  for 
upholding  and  corroborating  these  incorrect  opinions,  as 
we  already  observed.^  Therefore,  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  the  Jews,  like  all  other  Zoroastrians,  would  submit 


*  See  chapter  VI,  n.  23. 

5  Marquart,  Fundamenie,  p.  37,  remarks  :  ‘  It  is  probable  that  the  Jews 
represented  to  Artaxerxes  their  God  as  being  essentially  identical  with 
Ahuramazda,  hence  his  sympathy  for  the  Jews’  (see  chapter V,  note  51). 


144  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


to  the  religious  reform*  However,  the  Jews  formed  so 
insignificant  a  fraction  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Persian 
empire  that  it  may  be  seriously  doubted  whether  the  prime 
minister  thought  of  them  at  all,  and  whether  their  sub¬ 
mission  or  resistance  ever  entered  into  the  calculations  of 
his  scheme. 

But  the  resistance  of  the  Jews  was  by  no  means  im¬ 
material  to  the  success  of  the  innovation.  Numerically 
and  in  all  other  respects  they  were  at  too  great  a  dis¬ 
advantage  to  apprehend  on  their  part  any  serious  opposition, 
not  to  say,  an  insurrection.  But  one  spark  may  set  a 
building  aflame  where  there  is  combustible  matter.  The 
dissatisfaction  of  the  strict  Zoroastrians  with  the  corruption 
of  their  creed  might  have  been  stimulated  by  the  example 
set  by  the  Jews,  and  might  have  found  vent  in  a  Holy 
War,  and  this  was  certainly  a  subject  of  serious  appre¬ 
hension.  Being  informed  of  the  resistance  of  ' the  Jews, 
the  prime  minister  instructed  the  officials  to  adopt  the 
strictest  measures  against  them.  Receiving  continuous 
reports  from  all  parts  of  the  empire  of  their  obstinacy, 
his  mind  could  not  have  been  well  disposed  towards  them. 
At  first  he  may  have  tried  rather  lenient  measures  to 
render  them  submissive.  But  seeing  the  futility  of  bending 
them  to  his  will  in  that  way,  he  had  no  course  but  to  break 
their  stubborn  resistance  by  imposing  upon  them  the  most 
severe  sentences.  The  condemned,  of  course,  gave  vent  to 
their  imprecations  on  the  author  of  their  doom.  Thus  it 
happened  that  this  prime  minister  became  a  persecutor  of 
the  strict  adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and  was  looked 
upon  as  ‘  an  enemy  of  the  Jews  ’. 

The  prime  minister  was  under  the  delusion  that  a 
number  of  executions  in  various  sections  of  the  empire 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  145 

would  have  the  salutary  effect  of  frightening  the  rest 
into  obedience.  But  the  effect  of  these  executions  was 
contrary  to  his  expectations.  The  Persians  had  not  yet 
had  the  experiences  of  religion's  persecutors,  that  blood  is 
the  best  fertilizer  for  the  growth  of  a  religious  creed.  One 
martyr  made  numerous  converts.  As  in  former  days, 
under  Babylonian  rule,  the  courage,  devotion,  and  fervour 
of  the  martyrs  reawakened  the  religious  conscience  slumber¬ 
ing  in  the  hearts  of  many  indifferent  Jews.  Many  of  the 
latter  who  by  their  conduct  had  not  even  been  recognized 
as  Jews,  now  openly  declared  their  adherence  to  the  Jewish 
creed,  protesting  against  the  cruel  treatment  of  their  co¬ 
religionists,  and  denouncing  the  author  of  those  persecutions. 
We  may  doubt  whether  they  went  to  the  utmost  limit 
of  sacrificing  themselves  for  their  religion.  But  they  were 
at  least  willing  to  share  the  disadvantage  of  being  known 
as  adherents  of  an  unpopular  creed.  There  may  have  been 
others  less  indifferent  who,  moved  by  the  example  set  by 
their  brethren,  became  strictly  religious,  and  were  ready 
to  share  the  fate  of  the  latter.  The  Talmud  appears  to 
be  right  in  observing,  that  the  Jews  had  again  voluntarily 
accepted  the  Jewish  religion,  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus.® 

In  former  days,  the  Jews  had  been  eager  to  demonstrate 
to  the  Persians  that  their  own  religion  was  closely  akin 
to  that  of  the  latter.  This  policy  had  now  to  be  abandoned  ; 
for  if  the  Jewish  religion  was  based  upon  the  same 
principles  as  that  of  Zoroaster,  there  was  no  ground  why 

®  Shabbath  88  b.  The  Talmud,  however,  in  all  probability  did  not  know 
of  these  persecutions,  and  merely  based  its  saying  upon  the  verse :  ‘  The 
Jews  confirmed  and  took  upon  themselves  ’  (IX,  27),  which  they  interpreted  : 

‘  They  confirmed  now  (the  Law)  which  they  had  taken  upon  themselves 
long  ago’ ("inD  HD 

H. 


L 


146  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

it  should  not  undergo  the  same  change.  The  logical  con¬ 
clusion  would  have  been  that  the  opposition  the  royal 
decree  met  with  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  was  not  due  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  their  religion,  but  to  the 
obstinacy  and  disloyalty  of  its  adherents.  The  Jews  could 
plead  their  innocence  only  by  demonstrating  that  their 
own  religion  prohibited  the  worship  of  idols,  that  ^  their 
laws  are  diverse  from  all  people  ’.  They  could  easily  refute 
the  accusation  of  being  disloyal  subjects  by  pointing  out 
that  they  had  always  recognized  the  divinity  of  Ahura- 
mazda,  the  supreme  God  of  the  Iranians,  and  still  continue 
to  do  the  same,  being  thus  more  loyal  to  the  Persians 
than  all  their  polytheistic  subjects  who  formerly  had  not 
the  least  regard  for  the  Persian  religion.  This  plea  was 
irrefutable,  but  more  harmful  to  their  cause  than  silence. 
The  Jews  thus  assumed  the  part  of  ‘  Defenders  of  the 
Faith  ’,  insisting  upon  the  purity  of  Zoroaster’s  religion. 
Now  intolerance  toward  the  creeds  of  the  non- Iranians  was 
not  a  part  of  the  scheme  of  that  innovation,  as  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  Anahita  did  not  restrain  them  from  continuing 
to  worship  their  own  deities.  The  idea  of  toleration, 
however,  did  not  work  as  far  as  the  creed  of  the  Jews  was 
concerned.  The  prime  minister  perceived  that  the  religious 
conceptions  of  these  people  were  inimical  to  and  incom¬ 
patible  with  the  execution  of  his  measures.  He  saw  in 
this  religion  the  root  of  the  evil  which  must  be  eradicated. 
It  was  against  Persian  political  principles  to  be  intolerant 
towards  other  religious  beliefs,  and  he  may  have  been 
reluctant  to  depart  from  them  and  apply  measures  for  the 
suppression  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  latter,  however, 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  which  was :  ‘  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me  ...  for  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  147 

a  jealous  God  could  not  expect  tolerance  from  the 
believers  in  other  gods,  the  existence  of  which  it  denied. 

But  as  long  as  those  who  resisted  his  ordinances  were 
merely  found  sporadically,  no  great  harm  was  done,  and 
he  was  loath  to  use  extreme  measures  against  the  practice 
of  that  religion.  He  saw  that  this  fundamental  doctrine  was 
adhered  to  only  by  a  small  fraction  of  the  Jews,  and  believed 
that  with  their  extinction,  it  would  be  in  abeyance,  and 
no  longer  detrimental  to  the  innovation.  But  the  con¬ 
dition  became  more  and  more  aggravated.  This  strictly 
monotheistic  conception  gained  converts  everywhere.  An 
example  of  this  kind  we  find  in  Mordecai. 

The  author  of  our  story  informs  us :  ‘  Esther  had  not  Esther 
showed  her  people  nor  her  kindred  ’.  Does  the  author 
intend  to  state  that  Esther  kept  secret  not  only  her  Jewish 
extraction  but  also  her  kinship  to  Mordecai  ?  How  could 
she  have  done  so,  since  she  was  taken  from  Mordecai’s 
house,  and  he  went  every  day  to  inquire  of  the  eunuchs 
about  her?^  If  Mordecai  was  known  to  be  a  Jew,  and 
anxious  that  Esther  should  conceal  her  connexion  with 
the  Jews,  was  he  not  afraid  lest  by  his  constant  solici¬ 
tude  for  her  welfare  the  secret  might  leak  out  ?  The 
author  could  not  be  guilty  of  so  flagrant  a  contradiction. 

This  statement  undoubtedly  meant  to  imply  that  Esther 
concealed  the  fact  that  she  belonged  to  those  who  were 
adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Since,  however,  Esther 
was  actually  of  Jewish  lineage,  the  author  used  the  para- 

Owing  to  the  current  interpretation  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  this  question 
has  not  yet  found  a  satisfactory  solution.  Haupt,  Critical  Notes,  p.  135, 
thinks  that  by  some  diplomatic  questions  Mordecai  could  have  obtained 
some  special  information  concerning  Esther  without  revealing  the  fact  that 
she  was  his  cousin  and  foster-daughter.  But  this  is  impossible,  since  she 
was  taken  from  Mordecai’s  house,  as  Baton,  p.  175,  and  others  object. 


148  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

phrase  ‘her  people  and  her  kindred’.  Thus  Esther  kept 
secret  her  Jewish  religion.^  But  Mordecai  did  exactly  the 
same.  He  was  not  known  among  the  Gentiles  to  be  a  Jew.^ 

Thus  there  was  no  reason  why  Esther  should  have  con¬ 
cealed  her  kinship  to  Mordecai.  It  was  by  no  means 
necessary  to  be  of  pure  Persian  lineage  to  be  regarded  as 
Persian.  Herodotus  states  that  the  children  of  Metiochus, 
the  son  of  Miltiades,  were  accounted  Persians^®  If  Greeks 
could  be  so  easily  changed  into  Persians,  why  not  Jews? 
Mordecai,  like  many  other  Jews  of  that  period,  was  in  dress, 
habit,  language,  and,  in  all  probability,  even  in  his  name,^^ 
not  in  the  least  different  from  any  other  Persian.  Having 
been  an  indifferent  Jew,  he  was  looked  upon  by  his  neigh¬ 
bours  and  casual  acquaintances  as  a  genuine  Persian. 

An  obscure  private  citizen  can  easily  conceal  his  identity,  y' 
but  not  a  high  official  who  is  constantly  in  the  eye  of  the 
public  which  is  naturally  curious  to  learn  all  about  his 
personality  and  pedigree.  Esther,  soon  after  her  elevation 
to  the  rank  of  queen,  procured  for  her  cousin  an  office 
at  the  court.  She  might  have  done  so,  informing  the  king 
that  Mordecai  was  related  to  her,  without  dwelling  upon 
the  fact  that  the  latter  was  her  cousin  and  had  adopted 
her  as  his  daughter.  This  she  did  after  the  downfall  of 
Haman.  Both  Mordecai  and  Esther  were  anxious  to 
conceal  their  identity,  which  could  only  be  effected  if 
the  former  remained  in  a  humble  position,  fearing  that 
the  king  on  being  informed  of  their  close  kinship  might 
appoint  the  queen’s  adopted  father  to  a  high  position.  We 

*  See  chapter  V,  n,  63.'  ®  See  chapter  V. 

Herodotus  VI,  41. 

We  may  reasonably  assume  that  Mordecai  had  a  Persian  name  (see 
chapter  IX),  The  same  is  true  of  Nehemiah,  cf.  Marquart, 

P-  31- 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  149 


may  assume  that  even  then  the  king  was  willing  to  bestow 
upon  him  some  considerable  office,  but  Esther,  under  some 
pretext,  may  have  declined  itd^  However,  there  is  no  need 
to  assume  that  Mordecai  owed  his  office  at  the  court 
to  the  king’s  favour.  The  queen  had  only  to  hint  at  such 
a  request  to  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  or  to  one  of  the  high 
dignitaries  to  procure  for  Mordecai  this  position.  Thus 
j/  Mordecai  became  one  of  the  guards,  ‘  sitting  in  the  king’s 
gate 

Was  there  any  urgent  need  for  giving  Mordecai  a 
position  at  the  court?  Mordecai,  being  a  descendant  of 
a  wealthy  family,  was  not  in  need  of  this  position  for  his 
sustenance.  Nor  was  he  ambitious  to  pride  himself  on 
being  a  court  official.  We  have  seen  that  Mordecai’s  desire 
that  Esther  should  captivate  the  king’s  heart  was  not  due 
to  his  personal  ambition,  but  to  the  forethought  that  in 
time  of  need  she  might  be  helpful  to  the  Jewish  people. 

This  plan  showed,  as  we  have  observed,  his  solicitude  for 
the  welfare  of  his  brethren  but  little  regard  for  their  tenets. 

This  plan  required  that  Mordecai  should  be  in  the  proximity 
of  the  queen.  As  an  attendant  of  the  royal  court,  it  was 
possible  for  him,  by  means  of  the  eunuchs,  in  case  of  an 
emergency,  to  be  in  communication  with  the  queen  without 
attracting  attention. 

V  As  one  of  the  body-guards  in  charge  of  the  gate  of  the  Esther  2. 
royal  palace,  Mordecai  was,  of  course,  in  intercourse  and 
on  friendly  terms  with  other  attendants  and  eunuchs  about 
.  the  person  of  the  king.  Thus,  on  one  occasion,  he  discovered 
I  a  plot  against  the  life  of  the  king.  This  plot  may  be 
identical  with  the  conspiracy  against  the  life  of  Artaxerxes, 
which,  if  Aspasia,  the  concubine  of  Cyrus,  did  play  any 

See  Cassel’s  reflections  upon  this  policy,  p.  65. 


150  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

part  in  it,  must  have  occurred  not  many  years  after 
the  battle  of  Cunaxa,  as  was  already  suggested  in  the 
fourth  chapter.  In  that  case,  the  servant  who,  according 
to  Plutarch,  divulged  that  conspiracy,  may  be  identical 
with  Mordecai.  Our  text  is  here,  owing  to  an  error  of 
a  copyist,  somewhat  confused.  We  have  to  read  :  ‘  In  those 
days,  when  the  virgins  were  gathered  together,  the  second 
time,  and  while  Mordecai  sat  in  the  king’s  gate,  two  of  the 
king’s  eunuchs,  Bigthan  and  Teresh,  of  those  which  kept 
the  door,  were  wroth’  ('DnntDi  T])b)r\2  ppnn  Dnn  D'D'a 
p]Dn  'ono  onni  |nn 

Our  author  intends  to  give  the  date  of  that  conspiracy : 
it  occurred  at  a  time  when  virgins  were  gathered  again. 
We  have  seen  that  gatherings  of  this  kind  were  an  old- 
established  institution  at  the  Persian  courts,  for  the  purpose 


No  commentator  has  as  yet  explained  this  passage.  Wildeboer  thinks 
that  when  a  company  of  girls  arrived  people  crowded  into  the  court  to  see 
them,  and  that  Mordecai  took  that  opportunity  to  penetrate  further  into  the 
palace  than  he  could  ordinarily  go.  Siegfried  explains  this  clause  as  due  to 
the  clumsiness  of  the  author.  See  the  various  views  by  Baton,  pp.  186  tf. 
But  while  seeking  the  explanation  how  Mordecai  could  have  discovered 
the  conspiracy  at  the  time  of  the  gathering  of  the  virgins,  they  overlooked 
the  main  difficulty  of  that  passage.  This  can  have  no  connexion  with  the 
conspiracy,  since  it  is  separated  from  the  latter’s  description  by  verse  20  : 
‘  Esther  had  not  yet  shown  her  people  nor  her  kindred,  &c.’  However, 
a  close  examination  of  that  passage  shows  that  it  is  indeed  misplaced.  We 
notice  in  the  first  place  that  the  clause  ‘  Mordecai  was  sitting  in  the  king’s 
gate’  is  repeated  twice  in  the  verses  19  and  21.  Moreover,  after  the  words 
nnn  we  would  expect  ‘]^Dn  according  to  the 

author’s  style  (cf.  n2^2  DHn  D'D'n).  Therefore  we 

suggest  that  some  copyist  omitted  to  write  in  verse  21  the  clause 

nihm,  and  in  order  to  show  that  it  belongs  after  Dnn  he 

wrote  on  the  margin  perpendicularly,  there  not  being  enough  space  for 
horizontal  wiiting,  both  clauses  "lytyn 

;  and  another  copyist  inserted  them  in  a  wrong  place,  in  verse  19. 
Thus  originally  they  had  some  connexion  with  the  conspiracy. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I5I 

of  replacing  the  faded  beauties  of  the  haremd^  We  may 
assume  that  they  always  occurred  when  the  various 
governors  of  the  provinces  sent  to  the  court  a  sufficient 
supply.  We  are  not  distinctly  informed  of  the  nature 
of  that  plot.  In  the  conspiracy  of  Darius^  mentioned  by 
Plutarch,  the  conspirators  intended  to  murder  Artaxerxes 
in  his  bed-chamber.  In  our  case,  the  conspirators  were 
‘  of  the  keepers  of  the  threshold  ’  (siDH  who  evidently 

guarded  the  entrance  to  the  king’s  private  chambers.  This 
may  be  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  they  were  eunuchs, 
while  it  was  not  a  requirement  of  those  ‘  who  sat  on  the 
king’s  gate’  to  belong  to  that  class.  Therefore  we  may 
conjecture  that  it  was  a  conspiracy  of  the  same  kind. 
However,  there  is  a  possibility  that  the  clause,  ‘  when  the 
virgins  were  gathered  together,  the  second  time  ’,  is  more 
than  a  date,  and  has  a  deeper  meaning.  Did  the  con¬ 
spirators  intend  to  murder  the  king  by  pretending  to 
introduce  to  him  one  of  the  newly  arrived  virgins?  We 
may  perhaps  think  of  how  Alexander  of  Macedonia,  the 
son  of  Amyntas,  destroyed  the  Persian  embassy  by  intro¬ 
ducing  to  them  beardless  youths  dressed  in  garments  of 
women. We  may  even  imagine  that  one  of  the  virgins 
may  have  been  a  party  to  the  conspiracy  in  order  to  avenge 
the  death  of  some  relatives.  We  may  recall  the  case  of 
Phaedima,  the  daughter  of  Otanes,  who  played  a  very 
important  part  in  the  overthrow  of  Smerdis.^®  Having 
been  one  of  the  guards,  and  on  intimate  terms  with  the 
other  attendants,  Mordecai  may  have  been  invited  to  join 

See  chapter  IV,  note  12. 

Herodotus  V,  20.  Similar  stories  are  told  by  many  ancient  writers, 
see  G.  Rawlinson,  Herodotus^  vol.  IV,  p,  190,  n  i. 

Herodotus  HI,  69. 


152  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


the  conspiracy.  The  fact  that  he  disclosed  it  reflects  no 
credit  upon  Mordecai.  The  king’s  murder  would  have 
ended  all  his  hopes  and  expectations  of  Esther’s  high 
position  for  the  benefit  of  his  brethren.  He  had  more 
interest  in  the  king’s  life  than  had  any  one  else.  The  king, 
of  course,  could  not  know  this,  and  we  may  safely  con¬ 
jecture  that  the  latter,  as  a  reward  for  his  deed,  was  willing 
to  appoint  him  to  a  high  office  commensurate  with  his 
merits.  But  Mordecai,  as  we  have  seen,  could  not  have 
accepted  this  honourd’^  The  chief  executive  at  that  time 
saw  no  reason  to  promote  Mordecai  against  his  will,  and 
was  certainly  well  pleased  with  Mordecai’s  modesty. 
Nevertheless,  his  deed  being  recorded  in  the  royal  archives 
as  that  of  ‘  a  benefactor  of  the  king  ’,  it  was  a  valuable 
asset  of  which  Mordecai  could  make  use  in  time  of  need. 

Considering  that  Mordecai  was  so  anxious  to  advance 
the  welfare  of  his  brethren,  the  question  naturally  arises : 
Why  did  he  not  request  Esther  to  intercede  with  the 
king  on  behalf  of  the  persecuted  Jews?  Not  having 
been  strictly  religious,  Mordecai  considered  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  Anahita  a  mere  formality,  and  disapproved 
of  the  fanaticism  of  the  strictly  religious  Jews.  He  saw 
in  their  obstinacy  an  act  of  self-destruction.  We  must 
bear  in  mind  that,  as  already  observed,  Haman  in  all  other 
respects  did  not  interfere  with  the  practices  and  observances 
of  the  Jewish  religion.  Moreover,  Mordecai  knew  what 
importance  the  king  attached  to  the  innovation  recently 
introduced  into  the  Zoroastrian  religion,  seeing  in  it  a 
panacea  for  his  diseased  empire,  and  had  no  expectation 

Paton,  p.  192  :  ‘  Why  Mordecai  should  not  have  been  rewarded  at 
once,  but  his  services  merely  recorded  in  the  annals,  is  hard  to  understand.’ 
Similarly  Siegfried  and  others  see  in  it  a  defect  of  composition. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  153 

that  Esther’s  intercession  with  the  king  would  be  of  any 
avail.  In  doing  so,  Esther  might  have  endangered  her 
position,  and  would  have  been  of  no  further  use  to  the 
Jewish  cause.  But  notwithstanding  his  disapproval  of 
the  zeal  of  his  brethren,  blood  is  proverbially  thicker  than 
water,  and  his  heart  bled  at  the  sight  of  their  misery. 
Its  author  being  the  prime  minister,  Mordecai  naturally 
heartily  detested  the  butcher  of  his  brethren. 

All  commentators  on  the  Book  of  Esther  have  laboured 
in  vain  in  seeking  a  rational  explanation  for  Mordecai’s 
refusal  to  bow  down  to  Haman,  a  homage  certainly  due 
to  the  chief  executive  and  highest  grandee  of  the  empire 
Modern  exegetes,  who  see  in  the  events  narrated  in  this 
book  pure  fiction,  regard  this  point  as  one  of  the  principal 
defects  in  the  composition  of  our  story.  We  do  not  blame 
them,  as  the  historical  events  of  that  period  which  form 
,  the  background  of  our  story  and  the  antecedents  of 
Haman’s  position  were  not  known  to  them.  But  in  the 
light  of  the  present  exposition  it  is  clear  that  Mordecai 
in  his  state  of  mind  could  not  have  acted  in  any  other 
way.  Paying  homage  to  the  relentless  persecutor  and 
murderer  of  his  brethren  was  for  Mordecai  out  of  the 
question.  No  Jew  with  a  spark  of  honour  could  have 
stooped  to  so  base  an  action.  Thus  it  was  not  vanity 
that  prevented  Mordecai  from  doing  obeisance  to  the  prime 
minister.  But  we  might  still  contend  that  it  was  imprudent 
of  Mordecai  to  insult  the  prime  minister,  who  was  entitled 
to  the  honour  of  TTpoo-Kvyrjcn?,  according  to  the  Persian  law, 
from  all  his  subordinates^^.  Mordecai  should  have  spared 

The  old  explanation  that  Haman  claimed  divine  honours  is  of  course 
fancy  (see  the  various  views  by  Paton,  p.  196  f.). 

Our  author  clearly  states  that  it  was  a  special  command  of  the  king. 


154-  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  3. 2. 


himself  that  humiliation  by  resigning  his  position  at  the 
court,  and  would  thus  not  have  to  face  the  prime  minister. 
The  Talmud  actually  blames  Mordecai  for  his  conduct.^^ 
However,  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  just  at  that  period, 
when  the  conditions  of  the  Jews  became  more  and  more 
precarious,  it  was  more  than  ever  necessary  for  Mordecai 
to  remain  in  the  proximity  of  Esther.  He  saw  in  his  mind 
the  time  approaching  when  Esther’s  intercession  would 
be  the  only  means  of  rescuing  his  people.  But  even  if 
Mordecai’s  conduct  was  unwise,  the  very  fact  that  he  dared 
to  challenge  Haman  proves  how  deeply  he  was  affected 
by  the  sufferings  of  his  brethren.  Carried  away  by  his 
passionate  hatred  towards  the  persecutor  of  his  people, 
he  was  unable  to  consider  the  inadvisability  of  insulting 
the  former,  and  was  even  careless  about  his  own  safety. 
This  conduct,  if  imprudent,  redounds  even  more  to  his 
honour  as  a  Jew  than  the  great  service  he  later  rendered 
to  the  Jewish  cause.  In  exposing  his  own  life,  Mordecai 
fully  identified  himself  with  the  strict  adherents  of  the 
Jewish  religion. 

Thus  while  ‘  all  the  king’s  servants,  that  were  in  the 
king’s  gate,  bowed,  and  reverenced  Haman :  for  the  king 
had  so  commanded  concerning  him,  Mordecai  bowed  not, 
nor  did  him  homage’.  His  odd  behaviour  could  not  pass 
unnoticed.  His  fellow  keepers  of  the  gate  could  not 

Herodotus  tells  us  about  the  method  of  salutation  by  the  Persians  :  ‘  Where 
the  difference  in  rank  is  great,  the  inferior  prostrates  himself  upon  the 
ground.’  Our  author  may  mean  that  Haman  was  by  his  elevation,  according 
to  the  Persian  law,  entitled  to  receive  that  salutation  from  all  officials. 
However,  it  may  have  been  a  special  command  of  the  king  that  Haman, 
who  occupied  such  a  high  position,  should  be  saluted  in  that  way  by  every¬ 
body  ;  the  king  may  have  intended  to  show  that  he  had  appointed  him 
as  his  alter  ego,  and  that  his  authority  is  like  that  of  the  king. 

Megillah  13  a. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  155 

conceive  of  a  man  in  his  sound  mind  committing  such  an 
action  by  which  one  could  easily  forfeit  his  own  life,  if  it 
were  reported  to  the  authorities,  and  were  naturally  curious 
to  learn  the  reason  of  his  strange  behaviour.  ‘  Then  the 
king’s  servants,  which  were  in  the  king’s  gate,  said  unto 
Mordecai,  Why  transgressest  thou  the  king’s  command¬ 
ment?’  It  seems  that  at  first  he  gave  them  an  evasive 
answer  or  no  answer  at  all,  as  he  still  kept  secret  the  fact 
of  his  being  a  Jew.  But  as  they  became  importunate,  and 
repeated  the  same  question  ‘  from  day  to  day  ’,  Mordecai 
finally  broke  his  silence,  and  disclosed  to  them  the  real 
reason  for  his  behaviour.  His  fellow  keepers  were  to  a 
certain  degree  responsible  for  his  disrespectful  behaviour, 
and  threatened  to  denounce  him  to  the  proper. authorities 
in  case  he  should  still  refuse  to  explain  it.  Now  he  had 
to  throw  off  his  disguise,  and  frankly  declared  ‘  that  he 
was  a  Jew’,  an  adherent  of  the  Jewish  religion.^^  It  was 
a  sufficient  reason,  and  his  fellow-keepers  readily  understood 
that  as  a  man  of  honour  he  could  not  be  expected  to  do 
homage  to  the  persecutor  of  his  co-religionists.  But  being 
responsible  for  his  conduct,  they  may  have  advised  him 
to  leave  the  court  and  not  expose  his  and  their  lives  to 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  They  did  not  know  that  he 
accepted  that  office  for  the  purpose  of  being  near  to  the 
queen.  He  seems  to  have  confided  to  them  the  fact  that 
he  saved  the  king’s  life,  and  assured  them  that  being  one 
of  ‘the  benefactors  of  the  king’  {evepyeTrjs  he 

would  not  be  punished,  and  could,  if  the  worst  happened, 
invoke  the  king’s  protection.  It  was  a  slim  chance. 
Religious  questions  may  have  formed  the  daily  topic  of 

It  is  clearly  seen  that  he  was  not  recognized  as  a  Jew. 

22  See  Herodotus  HI,  140  ;  VIII,  85,  and  Diodorus  XVII,  14. 


156  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esthers.  5. 


their  arguments,  in  which  Mordecai  exasperated  his  fellow 
officers  by  his  opinions.  The  latter,  to  insure  their  own 
safety,  had  no  other  course  but  to  report  Mordecai’s 
conduct,  and  convince  themselves  of  the  truth  of  his 
immunity,  and  in  that  case  they  would  no  more  annoy 
him  with  their  interference:  ‘and  they  told  Haman,  to  see 
whether  Mordecai’s  words  would  stand  ’,  that  is  to  say, 
his  assurance  that  he  would  not  be  punished. 

Why  did  Haman  hesitate  to  punish  Mordecai,  as 
transgressor  of  the  royal  command,  for  his  disrespectful 
conduct  ?  The  fact  that  Mordecai  had  saved  the  king’s 
life  could  not  have  given  him  full  licence  to  disobey 
consciously  and  persistently  the  royal  command.  The 
modern  exegetes  indeed  regard  this  part  of  the  story  as 
highly  improbable.^^  It  is  no  surprise  that  they  are  not 
able  to  comprehend  this  point.  They  labour  under  the 
delusion  that  the  term  ‘Jews’  (D''Tin'')  was  a  racial  designa¬ 
tion.  It  is  perhaps  due  to  the  conditions  of  the  Jews 
in  the  Christian  era  which  left  its  impressions  on  their 
mode  of  thinking,  that  they  cannot  dissociate  the  idea 
of  the  Jewish  religion  from  that  of  the  Jewish  race.  They 
do  not  consider  the  possibility  of  a  man  being  by  descent, 
language,  habit,  and  in  all  respects  a  genuine  Persian,  and 
nevertheless,  as  far  as  religion  is  concerned,  a  real  ‘Jew’ 
(nin'').  This  misconception  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  im¬ 
probabilities  and  impossibilities  we  are  confronted  with 
in  the  actions  of  Mordecai  and  Esther.  In  the  opinion 
of  the  modern  commentators,  Haman  could  not  have  been 

Mordecai  must  have  declared  that  he  would  continue  to  do  so  with 
impunity.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  :  ‘  to  see  whether  Mordecai’s 
words  would  stand’  nm 

See  Siegfried,  p.  139  ;  Paton,  p.  74,  and  other  commentators. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I57 


aware  of  the  relationship  between  Mordecai  and  Esther, 
if  he  knew  that  the  former  was  a  Jew.  For  if  he  was 
acquainted  with  both  facts,  he  could  not  doubt  that  Esther 
was  a  Jewess,  and  the  whole  story  would  be  impossible. 
Seeing,  however,  that  Esther  was  taken  from  Mordecai’s 
house,  and  their  relationship  could  not  have  remained  a 
secret,  and  Haman  knowing  likewise  that  Mordecai  belonged 
to  the  Jewish  race,  the  commentators  cannot  but  condemn 
our  story  as  impossible.  Therefore  we  dwelt,  in  the  fifth 
chapter,  on  this  point  to  demonstrate  that  in  post-exilic 
times,  among  Jews  and  gentiles  alike,  the  term  ‘Jews’ 
(□'Tin'')  had  a  merely  religious  significance.  Haman,  who 
had  trouble  with  the  Jews  and  was  naturally  interested 
in  them,  was  not  unacquainted  with  the  fact  that  there 
were  many  among  them  of  non- Jewish  origin.  Mordecai’s 
adherence  to  the  Jewish  religion  was  a  private  matter. 
He  could  have  belonged  to  the  highest  Persian  nobility, 
and  be  nevertheless  by  religion  a  ‘  Jew  ’  He  did 

not  identify  the  idea  of  the  Jewish  religion  with  that  of 
the  Jewish  race.  Such  an  idea  never  entered  into  his 
calculations.  He  was  not  interested  in  racial  problems, 
but  in  the  religious  question.  Esther  was  innocent  of 
Mordecai’s  adherence  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  he  knew 
that  as  queen  she  deported  herself  with  the  devotion  of 
a  true  believer  in  the  Persian  religion.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Haman  could  have  executed  Mordecai  for  having 
persistently  disregarded  the  royal  command.  Artaxerxes, 
who  was  so  jealous  of  his  authority,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  fourth  chapter,  would  certainly  not  have  been  lenient 
towards  Mordecai,  even  if  he  was  ‘  one  of  the  king’s  bene- 

25  In  a  later  period,  Izates,  the  king  of  Adiabene,  embraced  Judaism 
(Flavius  Josephus,  Antiquities,  XX,  4). 


158  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


factors’.  But  Haman  was  too  sagacious  to  act  hastily 
in  this  case.  He  knew  that  Artaxerxes  was  completely 
under  the  influence  of  the  harem.  Assuming  that  the 
queen  was  naturally  attached  to  her  relative,  Haman  was 
afraid  lest  some  day  the  queen  might  avenge  his  death. 
He  could  not  have  forgotten  how  Stateira,  in  order  to 
avenge  the  death  of  her  brother  Teriteuchmes,  had  put 
Udiastres  to  a  death  too  cruel  to  be  described,^®  and  how 
Parysatis,  by  her  intrigues,  had  destroyed  all  the  nobles  and 
eunuchs  who  saved  the  life  and  the  throne  of  Artaxerxes 
in  the  battle  of  Cunaxa,  in  order  to  avenge  the  death  of 
her  son  Cyrus.  It  was  even  dangerous  to  harm  a  relative 
of  the  favourite  women  of  the  king.  ^  Therefore  Haman’s 
poliey  was  to  be  on  good  terms  with  the  queen,  and  he 
did  not  dare  to  punish  her  relative.  Subsequently,  how¬ 
ever,  seeing  from  the  special  distinction  with  which  the 
queen  treated  him  that  it  was  impossible  that  she  should 
care  much  for  her  relative,  or  that  she  should  have  approved 
of  his  disrespectful  conduct  towards  him,  Haman  did  not 
hesitate  any  longer  to  inform  the  king  of  Mordecai’s 
disobedience  to  the  royal  command,  and  to  ask  his  per¬ 
mission  for  Mordecai’s  execution.^”^ 

26  Ctesias  57. 

2^  Notwithstanding  being  all-powerful,  Haman  had  to  ask  the  king’s 
permission  for  Mordecai’s  execution,  and  could  not  act  on  his  own  responsi¬ 
bility.  Herodotus  I,  137,  informs  us:  ‘The  king  shall  not  put  any  one  to 
death  for  a  single  fault.  .  .  .  But  in  every  case  the  services  of  the  offender 
shall  be  set  against  his  misdoings  ;  and  if  the  latter  be  found  to  outweigh 
the  former,  the  aggrieved  party  shall  then  proceed  to  punishment  ’.  Cf  also 
the  story  of  Sandoces  who  was  taken  down  from  the  cross,  because  Darius 
thought  that  the  good  deeds  of  Sandoces  toward  the  royal  house  were  more 
numerous  than  his  evil  deeds,  as  told  by  Herodotus  VH,  194.  Haman  as 
chief  executive  learned  of  Mordecai’s  act  in  saving  the  king’s  life.  But 
that  fact  was  not  an  absolute  protection.  So  did  Tissaphernes,  to  whom 
Artaxerxes  owed  his  life  and  throne,  and*who  was  nevertheless  executed. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  159 


However,  the  conduct  of  Mordecai  meant  more  than  Esther 3. 6. 
an  insult  to  the  dignity  of  the  prime  minister  or  a  trans¬ 
gression  of  a  royal  command.  His  disrespect  was  a  protest 
against  Hamans  polkv.  His  endeavours  to  consolidate 
the  empire  by  bringing  the  various  inhabitants  of  the 
Persian  empire  into  closer  relations  with  the  Persians  was 
openly  denounced  and  condemned.  This  was  a  matter  for 
grave  reflection.  If  his  authority  was  defied  in  the  very 
palace  of  Artaxerxes,  how  could  he  expect  his  ordinances  ^ 
to  be  obeyed  in  the  provinces  ?  Mordecai’s  conduct  opened 
his  eyes.  He  now  fully  realized  that  the  numerous  execu¬ 
tions  he  had  ordered  did  not  produce  the  effect  of  frighten¬ 
ing  the  Jews  into  obedience.  Mordecai  was  nbt  an 
eccentric  individual,  but  a  type  of  the  Jews.  He  now 
clearly  perceived  that  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  unlike  other 
religions,  is  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  empire,  as  its 
existence  was  incompatible  with  the  newly  inaugurated 
innovation  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion.  The  Jewish  faith 
being  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  it  had  to  be  extirpated,  by  pro¬ 
claiming  its  adherents  traitors  and  criminals,  even  those  who 
had  hitherto  not  resisted  the  worship  of  Anahita,  but  still 
declared  themselves  to  be ‘Jews’  (D''Tin'),  and  lived  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  observances  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Haman  now 
became  the  prototype  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  For  the 
first  time,  the  Jews  were  ordered  ‘to  forsake  their  Laws’. 

\/  On  the  vernal  New  Year  Festival,  celebrated  in  Persia  Esther  3. 7. 
as  well  as  in  Babylonia,^*  in  which  the  gods  determine  the 
destinies  of  man  for  the  coming  year,^®  Haman  cast 


Haupt  {Purim,  p.  3)  remarks  :  ‘The  Persian  Spring-festival  ...  is  no 
doubt  based  upon  the  Babylonian  New  Year’s  festival.  It  was  celebrated 
at  the  vernal  equinox  ’. 

The  gods  were  believed  to  assemble  themselves  in  the  chamber  of 


l6o  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


lots^®  to  ascertain  by  divination  the  fate  of  the  Jews,“^  and 
the  favourable  month  and  day  for  their  extermination. 

Was  the  casting  of  the  lots  so  significant  an  event  as  to 
afford  a  sufficient  explanation  for  the  name  of  Purim?^^ 
Astrology,  according  to  Maimonides,^^  borders  on  idolatry. 
But  this  expression  is  too  mild.  Astrology  is  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  identical  with  idolatry.  The  belief  that  the 
planets  influence  the  fate  of  man  can  be  sustained  only  by 
identifying  them  with  the  gods  of  the  pantheon.^^  The 
chief  office  of  the  Babylonian  priests  was  divination,  the 
most  prominent  of  which  was  that  based  on  the  observation 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  heavens.  Diodorus,  in  dealing 
with  the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldees,  writes  :  ‘  The  chiefs  of 
these  gods,  they  say,  are  twelve  in  number,  to  each  of 
whom  they  attribute  a  month  and  a  sign  of  the  zodiac 
The  belief  in  constellations  actually  meant  the  recognition 
of  the  powers  of  the  gods.  If  the  people  had  seen  in  the 
planets  inanimate  heavenly  bodies  moving  in  obedience  to 


fate  under  the  presidency  of  Bel-Marduk  to  determine  the  destinies  of  man. 
Cf.  Zimmern’s  theory  on  Purim  {Keilinschriften  ttnd  das  Alie  Testament^ 
1902,  p.  514;  Zeitschrift  fur  altt.  Wtssensch.^  1891,  pp.  152  ff.).  In  Persia 
the  determiner  of  fate  was  of  course  Ahuramazda.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  upon  the  identical  idea  is  based  the  Jewish  New  Year  Festival  which 
is  held  to  be  the  day  in  which  the  fate  of  Israel  is  determined. 

Haupt  {Purim,  p.  19)  shows  many  parallels  to  the  custom  of  casting 
lots  on  New  Year. 

Haman  did  not  only  wish  to  discover  an  auspicious  day  and  month 
for  the  execution  of  his  plan,  but  also  whether  that  plan  would  be  approved 
by  the  gods.  If  he  had  not  found  an  auspicious  day  and  month,  it  would 
have  shown  that  the  gods  disapproved  of  his  plan. 

Haupt  {Purim,  p.  3)  and  others  deny  it. 

55  See  Maimonides’  letter  to  the  men  of  Marseilles  (cf.  Steinschneider’s 
Hehrdische  Uehersetzungen  des  Mittelalters,  1893,  931). 

5^  Cf.  Jastrow’s  Aspects  of  Religious  Belief  aud  Practice,  chapter  V.  • 

55  Diodorus  II,  3. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  l6r 


an  inexorable  law  in  nature,  they  never  would  have 
believed  them  to  portend  future  events.  Therefore,  the 
prophet  Jeremiah,  in  contrasting  the  power  of  the  God  of 
Israel  with  that  of  idols,  prefaces  his  exhortation  with  the 
words :  ‘  Thus  saith  the  Lord :  Learn  not  the  way  of  the 
heathen,  and  be  not  dismayed  at  the  signs  of  heaven,  for 
the  heathen  are  dismayed  at  them  The  belief  in  the 
signs  of  heaven  was  contrary  to  that  in  the  God  of  Israel. 
As  long  as  idolatry  flourished,  astrology  was  generally  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  an  idolatrous  practice.  In  a  late  period, 
however,  astrology  assumed  a  different  aspect.  Judaism, 
Christianity,  and  Islam  could  easily  demolish  the  statues 
and  images  of  the  gods  held  to  govern  the  planets.  But 
the  belief  that  those  heavenly  bodies  govern  the  fate  of 
man  could  not  be  eradicated.  Therefore,  in  order  that  the 
popular  belief  should  not  contrast  with  the  established 
religions,  it  was  tacitly  admitted  that  the  movements  of  the 
stars  predict  future  events.  And  as  astrology  could  hide 
itself  under  the  wings  of  its  scientific  sister  astronomy,  and 
still  cater  to  the  superstitions  of  the  people,  it  was  a 
profitable  profession,  became  a  legitimate  science,  and  was 
practised  by  Jews,  Christians,  and  Mohammedans  alike, 
without  investigating  its  nature  and  origin.  Thus  astro¬ 
logy  is  not  a  remainder  of  polytheism,  but  its  fundamental 
factor.  The  Jewish  astrologers  about  the  first  century 
B.C.E.,  and  probably  also  later,  were  well  aware  of  the  fact 
that  their  practice  was  identical  with  idolatry,  and  in  order 
to  absolve  their  conscience,  substituted  for  the  heathen 
deities  as  governors  of  the  planets  angels  under  the  names 
Shamshi-el  (=  Shamash),  Kokab-el  (=  Ishtai^),  Shabti-el 

36  Jer.  lo.  2. 

3"^  Cf.  the  article  ‘Astrology’  (Blau  and  Kohler),  in  the  Jeivish  Encyc. 

M 


H. 


i62  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


(=  Ninib),  who  were  in  their  names  and  functions 

the  very  images  of  the  old  gods  of  the  pantheon.  ^^Thus  to 
ascertain  fate  by  divination  and  to  select  a  favourable  day 
and  month  for  the  execution  of  some  enterprise  means  the 
practice  of  idolatry,  as  it  presumes  that  each  day  and 
month  stands  under  the  rule  of  one  of  the  gods.  Though 
passages  in  the  Talmud  express  the  same  notion  that  each 
of  the  seven  days  of  the  week  is  governed  by  planets, this 
could  not  have  been  the  old  Rabbinic  conception.  There 
is  indeed  a  ‘  Baraitha  ’  that  distinctly  states  that  this  kind 
of  divination  was  prohibited,  in  declaring  that  the  biblical 
commandment,  ‘Ye  shall  not  use  enchantment’  refers  to 
that  ‘  by  means  of  the  stars  ’ 

though  these  Rabbis  condemned  this  practice,  they  could 
not  stamp  it  as  pure  idolatry,  since  it  was  generally  prac¬ 
tised.  It  was  different  in  the  fourth  century  B.C.E.,  when 
the  belief  in  divination  was  tantamount  to  that  in  the 
power  of  the  gods,  and  monotheism  and  astrology  were 
recognized  as  incompatible. 

Now  Haman’s  intention  was  to  extirpate  the  Jewish 
monotheistic  religion.  The  casting  of  the  lots  was  the  act 
of  divination  performed  by  the  priests  to  inquire  after  the 
will  of  the  gods.  We  may  surely  assume  that  this  per¬ 
formance  was  not  done  secretly,  but  was  solemnized  in  the 
temple  with  sacrifices  and  a  stately  service  in  the  presence 
of  the  public.  The  execution  of  Haman’s  intention  greatly 
depended  upon  the  goodwill  of  the  Gentile  population, 

See  the  book  Enoch,  I,  6,  7  ;  VII,  3.  We  are  told  that  Barakiel 
taught  astrology  ;  Kokabel,  the  constellations  ;  Ezekael,  the  knowledge  of 
the  clouds  :  Arakiel,  the  signs  of  the  earth  ;  Shamshiel,  the  signs  of  the 
sun  ;  and  Sariel,  the  course  of  the  moon. 

Shabbath  156  a. 

Sanhedrin  68  b. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  163 


and  he  had  to  demonstrate  that  his  action  was  commanded 
by  the  gods.  Thus  it  was  generally  known  that,  according 
to  those  lots  called  in  the  Hebraized  form  ‘  Purim  the 
fate  of  the  Jews  was  sealed.  Any  expression  of  sympathy 
for  the  cause  of  the  Jews  among  the  Gentiles  was  silenced 
by  the  word  ‘  Purim*,  indicating  that  no  man  may  interfere 
with  the  will  of  the  gods.  It  became,  as  we  may  say  in 
modern  parlance,  the  slogan  of  the  enemies  of  the  Jews. 
The  conflict  of  Haman  with  the  Jews  was  actually  a 
struggle  between  Monotheism  and  Polytheism."*^  Thus 
can  well  conceive  that  those  who  instituted  the  commemo-  ! 
ration  of  those  events  used  the  very  battle-cry  of  their 
enemies  as  an  appropriate  name  of  that  festival, expressing 


It  is  improbable  that  Haman  cast  the  lots  out  of  superstition. 

Cassel,  p.  101,  sees  also  in  the  casting  of  the  lots  a  contrast  between 
Judaism  and  paganism. 

The  question  whether  a  Persian  word pilr,  ‘lot’,  is  found,  is  irrelevant. 
What  do  zve  know  about  the  old  Persian  language  ?  The  language  of  the 
Avesta  had  never  been  the  Persian  idiom.  They  are  merely  related 
dialects,  but  for  the  most  part  independent.  As  to  Pahlavi,  the  language 
used  in  Persia  under  the  Arsacides  and  Sassanides,  it  is  a  middle  dialect 
between  the  ancient  and  modern  Persian  languages  (Darmesteter,  /.  c., 
p.  xxxiv).  We  may  reasonably  assume  that  our  author  would  never  have 
connected />?</' with  ‘lot’  if  he  had  not  known  that  it  has  that  meaning  in 
the  Persian  language.  Thus  the  emphatic  assertion  of  Haupt  {Purim,  p.  16) 
and  others  that  ‘  there  is  no  Persian  word  pur,  meaning  ‘  lot  ’,  is  rather 
daring.  But  we  need  not  assume  that  pur  is  an  original  Persian  word. 
There  is  no  getting  away  from  the  fact  that  we  have  an  equation  pur  = 
ahnu,  ‘stone’  (S°  114;  Brlinnow  6972).  Now  it  is  generally  admitted 
that  the  Hebrew  word  lot’,  which  our  author  identifies  with  pur, 

is  etymologically  identical  with  Arabic  L  ‘pebble’.  P.  Jensen  was  the 
first  who  suggested  that  pur,  ‘  lot  ’  is  connected  with  cuneiform  pur,  ‘  stone  ’ 
(Liter.  Centralbl.,  1896,  No.  50,  col.  1803),  and  he  is  no  doubt  right. 
Zimmern’s  objection  that  puru  in  the  cuneiform  language  means  ‘  a  sacrificial 
bowl  or  \.cCo\o''  =  pashshuru  (KAT.,  p.  518)  does  not  invalidate  Jensen’s 
suggestion.  The  words  pilru  and  abnu  mean  ‘a  stone  jug’  (cf.  Prince, 
Materials  to  a  Sumerian  Lexicon,  1908,  p.  63).  But  the  very  fact  that  only 

M  0, 


164  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


at  the  same  time  how  deceptive  the  belief  in  the  planetary 
gods  is  and  thereby  decrying  their  power.  However,  it  is 
possible  that  the  word  ‘  Purim  ’  is  etymologically  closely 
connected  with  the  name  of  the  old  Persian  festival 
Farwardigan,  The  latter  may  have  sounded  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  old  Persians  more  closely  to  the  Hebraized 
form  ‘Purim’.  Hitzig  had  already  compared  the  latter 
with  the  modern  Arabic  Phur^  the  name  of  ‘  the  new 
year’.^^  The  casting  of  lots  on  the  Persian  new  year 
festival  may  have  been  a  general  custom  which  Haman 
also  used  for  determining  the  fate  of  the  Jews.  The  latter 
by  adopting  the  name  of  the  Persian  new  year  as  that  of 
their  own  day  of  commemoration  may  have  intended  not 
only  to  commemorate  the  danger  they  had  escaped  but 
also  to  disguise  the  very  nature  of  this  festival  in  order  not 
to  offend  the  Persians. 

a  stone  jug  is  called  puru,  evidently  shows  that  it  bears  this  name  on  account 
of  its  material,  and  proves  that  puru  must  have  been  a  synonym  of  abnu, 
‘stone’.  Granting,  however,  that means  only  ‘a  sacrificial  bowl  or 
table  what  do  we  know  about  the  method  of  casting  lots  among  the 
Babylonians  and  the  Persians  ?  Who  may  tell  whether  the  lots  were  not 
put  in  a  sacrificial  bowl  or  upon  a  stone  altar?  We  can  well  conceive  that 
such  a  sacred  act  of  divination,  inquiring  after  the  will  of  the  gods,  should 
have  been  performed  in  sacred  vessels.  We  may  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  stone  vessels,  according  to  the  Rabbis  (Mishnah  Parah  I,  2),  cannot 
be  defiled,  and  are  used  where  absolute  purity  is  required,  as  for  ‘  the 
Water  of  Separation  made  of  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer’  (Num.  19).  The 
Persian  laws  of  purification,  and  perhaps  also  those  of  the  Babylonians, 
may  have  been  similar  to  those  of  Israel  (cf.,  however,  Vendidad,  Fargard, 
VII,  X).  The  Vulgate  indeed  translates:  mtssa  est  sors  in  nrnam  quae 
Hebraice  dicitur  phur  (cf.  also  Haupt,  Purim,  p.  20).  When  the  Persians 
took  over  the  New  Year  festival  from  the  Babylonians,  the  customs  con¬ 
nected  with  it  and  their  terms  were  taken  over  at  the  same  time.  Thus  the 
Persian  word  pur  may  be  a  Babylonian  (and  originally  a  Sumerian)  loan¬ 
word. 

In  his  Geschichte  Israels,  1869,  p.  280. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  165 

The  lot  fell  upon  the  month  of  Adar.  It  has  been 
contended  by  numerous  scholars  that  Purim  originally  was 
a  non-Jewish  festival.^^  We  believe  that  this  contention  is 
essentially  correct.  It  seems,  indeed,  that  there  was  a  great 
Persian  festival  simultaneous  with  the  P'east  of  Purim.  We 
have  already  observed  that  the  persecutions  of  the  Jews,  as 
a  rule,  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  high  festivals  of  the 
Persians.  All  the  year  round  people  do  not  concern  them¬ 
selves  with  religion.  Every  man  has  his  affairs  to  attend 
to,  and  cares  little  for  the  creed  of  his  neighbours.  It  is 
different  at  the  seasons  of  the  festivals.  The  people,  in 
high  spirits,  are  fully  devoted  to  their  own  creed  and 
zealous  for  the  honour  of  their  gods.  They  see  the  Jews 
indifferent  to  their  festivities,  which  indifference  is,  of  course, 
interpreted  as  depreciation,  and  feel  insulted.  Their  pride 
is  hurt  and  their  honour  outraged.  Some  Jews  may  have 
been  dragged  by  force  to  the  temples,,  and  murdered  if  they 
resisted.  Others  might  have  been  compelled  to  express  an 
opinion  concerning  the  divinity  of  Anahita,  and  if  it  was 
unfavourable,  might  have  been  executed.  vWe  must  bear 
in  mind  also  that  debauchery  was  always  characteristic  of 
festivities  among  common  people.  Being  full  of  intoxi¬ 
cants  and  bereft  of  their  senses,  they  were  capable  of 
committing  atrocities.  If  Haman  wanted  the  people  to 


Ernst  Meier,  Geschichte  der  poetischen  National- Literatur  der  Hebrder, 
1850,  p.  506;  Julius  Flirst,  Kanon  des  A.  T.^  p.  104;  Hitzig,  Geschichte  des 
Volkes  Israel,  1869,  p.  280  ;  Zunz,  ZDMG.,  XXVH,  p.  606  ;  J.  von  Hammer, 
Jahrb.  f.  Liter.,  XXXVIII,  p.  49  ;  Lagarde,  Purim  ;  Renan,  History,  VII, 
14  ;  Schwally,  Leben  nach  dem  Tode,  1893,  p.  42  ;  Hommel  in  Weisslowitz’s 
Prinz  und  Derwisch,  1890;  Zimmein,  KAT.,  p.  514  f.  ;  Jensen,  in  Wilde- 
boer’s  Commentary,  p.  173;  Meissner,  ZDMG.,  L,  p.  296;  Winckler, 
Altoriental.  Forschungen,  II,  pp.  91  ff.,  182  ff.,  &c.  For  the  discussion  of 
various  views  see  Paton,  pp.  84-94. 


l66  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


rise  against  the  Jews  and  exterminate  them,  he  had  no 
better  opportunity  to  achieve  his  aim  than  on  the  day  of 
some  great  festival.  At  any  other  time  it  was  doubtful 
whether  the  people  could  be  induced  to  murder  the  Jews 
in  cold  blood.  Subsequently,  when  the  Festival  of  Purim 
was  established,  there  was  no  fear  that  this  celebration 
might  offend  the  feelings  of  the  Gentiles,  as  it  was  simul¬ 
taneous  and  to  all  appearance  identical  with  the  Persian 
festival.  On  the  contrary,  by  its  introduction,  the  danger 
of  future  persecutions  was  minimized.  That  fact  sheds 
a  good  deal  of  light  on  the  attitude  of  the  Sopherim 
towards  the  Festival  of  Purim,  as  we  shall  see  further  in 
Chapter  IX.  Now  we  have  already  suggested  that  the 

Book  of  Esther  would  never  have  been  recorded  if  there 

» 

had  not  been  the  fear  that  the  event  of  Purim  would  sink 
into  oblivion,  and  the  festival  would  assume  a  non-Jewish 
character.^®  We  see  now  that  the  fear  of  such  a  possibility 
was  not  unfounded.  The  Festival  of  Hanukkah  frequently 
coincides  with  Christmas,  though  these  festivals  have  not 
the  least  connexion.  And  among  some  modern  Jews  the 
former  festival  recedes  into  the  background  and  assumes 
the  character  of  Christmas.  Exactly  the  same  would 
have  happened  with  the  Festival  of  Purim,  and  with 
more  reason. 

What  kind  of  festival  may  the  Persians  have  celebrated 
in  the  month  of  Adar  ?  The  worship  of  Anahita  being  the 
cause  of  the  Jewish  persecutions  and  of  the  decree  for  their 
extermination,  it  is  safe  to  conjecture  that  it  was  one  of  the 
festivals  of  that  goddess.  Al-Beruni  states  that  the  Sog- 
dians  celebrated  the  five  days  of  the  epagomena  at  the  end 
of  the  year."^^  According  to  Paul  de  Lagarde,  these  five 

See  chapter  V.  See  Lagarde,  Purim,  p.  38. 


J 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  167 

days  were  dedicated  to  Anahita.^^  Lagarde  and  also 
other  scholars  believe  that  it  was  an  ‘All-Souls’  Feast 
But  we  have  the  testimony  of  Strabo,  who  lived  about 
a  thousand  years  before  Al-Beruni  and  knew  the  Zoroas- 
trian  religion  while  it  still  flourished  better  than  did  the 
Mohammedan  author,  that  Anahita  was  a  goddess  of  pros¬ 
titution.®^  The  festival  of  a  goddess  of  that  kind  was  not 
•  of  a  very  solemn  and  noble  character,  as  Lagarde  would 
have  us  believe,  and  it  must  have  resembled  a  carnival 
rather  than  a  festival  of  the  dead.  Lagarde  contended 
that  the  Festival  of  Purim  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
cpagomena^^  We  accept  this  theory,  though  Lagarde  him¬ 
self  later  abandoned  it.®^  We  find  a  distinct  trace  of  such 
a  connexion  with  the  epagomena  in  the  Mishna,  which 
states :  ‘  The  Megillah  may  be  read  on  the  eleventh, 
twelfth,  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  and  fifteenth  days  of  Adar, 
not  earlier  and  not  later ’.®^  These  five  days  of  which 
there  is  no  trace  in  the  Book  of  Esther,®^  seem  to  corre- 


See  Lagarde,  Piirim^  p.  53. 

Ibid.,  p.  32.  Schwally  (cf.  n.  45)  and  similarly  Spiegel  (Eranische 
Alterthumskunde,  1878,  p.  577). 

See  chapter  VI.  However,  we  have  already  pointed  out  the  fact 
that  the  Babylonian  goddess  Ishtar  corresponded  also  to  a  chthonic  deity, 
and  the  same  may  be  true  of  Anahita  (see  chapter  VI,  n.  15).  But  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  in  Armenia  at  least,  Anahita  was  a  goddess  of  prosti¬ 
tution. 

Bertheau-Ryssel,  p.  372,  and  Baton,  p.  86,  raise  a  great  many  objec¬ 
tions  to  that  theory,  which  are  not  unfounded. 

Gott.  Gel.  Anz.,  1890,  p.  403. 

Mishnah  Megillah  2  a. 

Now  it  is  true  the  Mishnah  explains  very  plainly  how  it  happens  that 
the  Megillah  may  be  read  on  these  five  days.  But  this  explanation  may 
date  from  a  late  period.  The  Talmudic  deduction  from  the  term  ‘in  their 
times’  instead  of  ‘in  their  time’  (D.D1DT3)  is  hardly  to  be  taken 

seriously  (see  the  Talmudic  discussion  on  that  subject). 


l68  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


spond  to  the  five  days  of  the  epagomena.  Now  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  dates  of  these  two  celebrations  do  not 
exactly  agree,  as  the  epagomena^  according  to  the  Jewish 
calendar,  must  have  been  celebrated  by  the  Persians  from 
the  seventh  to  the  eleventh  of  Nisan.^^  However,  we 
scarcely  know  anything  about  the  customs  of  the  Persian 
festivals  in  antiquity,  and  who  may  assert  that  these  five 
days  of  the  Persian  and  Jewish  festivals  were  not  simul¬ 
taneous?  It  is  noteworthy  that  Pseudo-Smerdis  seized  the 
throne  on  the  fourteenth  of  Adar.^^  This  also  suggests 
that  there  was  some  festival  on  that  day.  The  worship  of 
Anahita  properly  belongs  to  the  old  belief  of  the  Magi. 
Hence  on  the  day  of  the  festival  of  this  goddess,  the 
Magians  attempted  by  the  means  of  Smerdis  to  overthrow 
Zoroaster’s  religion,  and  to  re-establish  their  own  former 
religion.^"^  Thus  the  Magians  who  cast  the  lots  and  in- 

S/  The  Persians  had  a  year  of  360  days  which,  with  the  five  epagomena, 
constituted  a  solar  year  of  365  days.  But  the  Jews  have  a  lunar  year  of 
354  days.  Thus  there  was  a  difference  of  eleven  days  between  the  Jewish 
and  Persian  first  of  Nisan.  But  we  must  consider  that  our  knowledge  of 
the  Persian  Calendar  in  the  Achaemenian  period  is  extremely  scanty,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  names  of  the  months  on  the  Behistun  inscription 
which  do  not  show  the  least  resemblance  to  those  of  the  Avesta,  Sogdians, 
Chorasmians,  and  the  Neo-Persians  (see  Lagarde,  Purim^  pp.  29-32). 
The  probability  that  there  is  some  connexion  between  the  epagomena 
and  the  Festival  of  Purim  cannot  be  denied.  If  the  former  had  been 
celebrated  on  the  days  of  Passover,  we  might  say  that  the  Jewish  festival 
was  changed  to  the  fourteenth  of  Adar,  in  order  not  to  conflict  wdth  the 
other  festival.  Since,  however,  the  epagomena  were  celebrated  at  the 
beginning  of  Nisan,  the  Jews  could  have  done  the  same.  Who  knows 
whether  the  epagomena  were  not  celebrated  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 
month  ? 

The  fourteenth  of  Viakhna  (Behistun  inscription,  col.  I,  15)  is  identical 
with  the  fourteenth  of  Adar  (cf.  Ed.  Meyer’s  Forschungen^  p.  472  f.). 

George  Rawlinson  rightly  contended  that  the  accession  of  Pseudo- 
Smerdis,  whereby  the  Medes  regained  their  ancient  supremacy,  was  not 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  169 


formed  Haman  that  Adar  would  be  the  favourable  month 
for  the  execution  of  his  plan  chose  the  time  which  Haman 
himself  would  have  chosen,  without  the  means  of  divination. 

Thus,  in  the  first  month  of  the  twelfth  year  of  Arta- 
xerxes’  reign,  in  the  year  392  B.C.E.,  Haman  planned  to 
exterminate  all  the  Jews  of  the  Persian  empire.  It  was 
no  easy  task  for  Haman  to  inform  the  king  that  the  policy 
inaugurated  by  him  caused  so  much  annoyance  that  he 
was  forced  to  use  the  most  extreme  measures  against  those 
who  opposed  him.  If  the  religious  innovation  had  encoun¬ 
tered  the  opposition  of  a  warlike  people,  the  downfall  of 
Haman  would  have  been  inevitable.  Artaxerxes  would 
have  sacrificed  him  rather  than  uphold  his  authority  and 
thereby  cause  a  holy  war.  At  that  period  he  needed  his 
army  for  other  purposes.  It  was  before  the  Peace  of 
Antalcidas.  The  Jews,  however,  were  powerless  and  de¬ 
fenceless.  But  what  about  the  Jews  in  Palestine?  Haman 
did  not  consider  them*  at  all.  It  goes  without  saying  that, 
if  the  Jewish  religion  had  been  abolished,  the  existence  of 
the  temple  in  Jerusalem  would  have  become  impossible. 
It  would  have  been  either  demolished  or  changed  into 
a  heathen  sanctuary.  From  the  statement  of  Hecataeus  of 
Abdera  we  know  that  the  Palestinian  Jews  suffered  greatly 
under  those  persecutions,  as  described  in  the  sixth  chapter.^^ 
The  condition  of  the  Jews  in  Judea  was  then  hardly  better 
than  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  They  were  still  surrounded 
by  hostile  neighbours  who  were  ready  to  attack  them  and 
to  wipe  out  their  semi- independent  state.  Jerusalem  was 

a  national  revolution,  but  the  ascendency  of  the  Magian  religion  (Herodotus, 
vol.  H,  p.  457).  A  similar  opinion  is  expressed  by  Marquart  [Fundanmite ^ 
p.  48),  and  approved  by  Ed.  Meyer  {G,  A.,  Ill,  p.  123). 

Josephus,  Contm  Apiunem,  I. 


1 70  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


now  surrounded  by  a  wall.  However,  the  latter  could 
only  protect  the  city  from  a  sudden  attack  on  the  part  of 
hordes,  and  not  against  a  regular  army.  There  was  no 
need  for  Haman  to  decree  the  destruction  of  the  Judean 
state.  The  latter  owed  its  existence  to  the  grace  of  the 
Persian  satraps.  This  province  would  have  been  lost  if 
the  Persians  had  withdrawn  their  protection  and  left  it  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  their  hostile  neighbours.^^  Therefore 

The  question  whether  Ezra  was  a  contemporary  of  Nehemiah  is  not 
solved  yet,  and  is  still  a  matter  of  dispute.  Ed.  Meyer  {^Entst.  d.  Jud.^ 
pp.  89-92)  seems  to  have  proved  that  they  were  contemporaries.  However, 
Batten  {Ezra,  in  the  International  Critical  Commentary,  New  York,  1913, 
p.  28),  still  contends  that  Ezra  belongs  to  a  later  period  than  Nehemiah. 
Several  of  his  arguments  are  not  conclusive,  and  were  already  discussed 
and  refuted  by  Ed.  Meyer.  But  there  is  one  point  of  evidence  against  the 
latter’s  view  that  deserves  serious  consideration.  We  find  that  Ezra  went 
into  the  chamber  of  Johanan,  the  son  of  Eliashib,  to  spend  the  night  there 
(Ezra  10.  6).  The  succession  of  High-priests  described  in  Nehemiah 
(12.  22)  shows  that  Johanan  is  identical  with  Jonathan  {ibid.,  12.  ii),  and 
that  he  was  the  grandson  of  Eliashib,  as  Stade,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Volks 
I  rael,  II,  p.  153,  has  already  proved.  If  Eliashib  was  a  contemporary  of 
Nehemiah,  Ezra  seems  to  have  lived  two  generations  later,  as  Batten 
expresses  himself  ‘  exactly  where  he  belongs,  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II 
However,  even  this  point  is  not  absolutely  convincing.  It  is  not  quite 
impossible  that  ihe  Johanan,  to  whose  chamber  Ezra  retired,  is  not  identical 
with  that  Johanan  who,  according  to  Elephantine  Papyri,  was  High-priest 
in  Jerusalem  in  407,  as  Wellhausen  {Gott.  Gel.  Nachr.,  1895,  168)  indeed 
suggests.  Or  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  compiler  who  revised  the  Ezra 
Memoirs,  may  have  changed  the  name  of  the  chamber,  because  in  his  time 
it  was  known  under  the  name  of  ‘  the  chamber  of  Johanan,  the  son  of 
Eliashib’,  as  Ed.  Meyer  thinks.  Neither  of  the  two  opinions. is  quite 
satisfactory.  In  either  case  we  will  have  to  encounter  a  great  many 
difficulties.  But  one  of  them  must  be  true.  If  Batten  is  right,  this  fact 
will  shed  considerable  light  on  both  the  Books  of  Esther  and  Ezra,  and  it 
will  be  seen  that  both  are  closely  connected.  The  prayer  of  Ezra  shows 
that  the  conditions  of  the  Jews  at  his  time  were  still  unsettled,  and  that 
their  existence  was  precarious.  Batten  further  admits  that  there  is  no  good 
reason  whatever  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  edict  of  Artaxerxes  II 
concerning  the  promulgation  of  the  Law.  Then  the  Law  must  have  been 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  17I 


Haman  in  his  decree  did  not  allude  to  the  Jewish  province 
in  Palestine.  He  aimed  chiefly  at  the  Jews  living  dispersed 

promulgated  about  396,  exactly  at  the  time  of  Esther.  We  may  notice, 
by  the  way,  that  the  fact  that  the  Law  just  now  received  official  recognition 
may  shed  some  light  on  the  religious  indifference  of  the  Jews  of  that 
period.  We  might  even  assume  that  the  Talmudic  saying:  ^The  Jews 
received  the  Law  again  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus’  (Shabbath  88  b),  rests 
upon  true  tradition.  But  these  are  minor  points.  However,  there  are 
others  of  more  importance.  We  see  Ezra  in  high  favour  with  Artaxerxes  11. 
But  we  do  not  find  the  least  reason  why  the  king  should  have  favoured 
him.  If  he  had  been  an  official,  like  Nehemiah,  he  would  have  informed 
us  of  this  fact,  as  did  Nehemiah.  On  the  other  hand,  looking  at  the  events 
of  the  Book  of  Esther,  it  seems  strange  that  a  Jewish  woman  occupying 
such  a  high  position,  who  might,  without  disclosing  her  identity,  confer 
many  a  boon  upon  her  people,  by  predisposing  the  king  in  their  favour, 
should  remain  quite  indifferent  to  their  welfare.  But  we  notice  a  remarkable 
coincidence.  In  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  II  two  events  happened  : 
In  that  year  a  Jewish  woman  became  queen,  and  in  the  same  year  the 
Jewish  Law  received  official  recognition.  Is  it  indeed  a  mere  coincidence? 
Would  it  not  be  more  logical  to  see  a  close  connexion  between  these  two 
events?  Esther  on  her  elevation  may  have  called  the  king’s  attention  to 
a  people  whose  religion  was  identical  with  that  of  the  Persians,  and  may 
have  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  good  policy  to  support  that 
creed,  as  the  spread  of  the  Persian  religion  in  the  Western  countries  would 
join  them  closer  to  the  Persian  empire.  This  opinion  coincided  with  an 
advice  urged  upon  him  by  one  of  the  councillors  to  make  Zoroastrianism 
the  supreme  religion  of  the  empire,  and  thus  prevent  its  disintegration. 
It  is  therefore  reasonable  that  the  same  king  who  was  desirous  of  dissemi¬ 
nating  his  own  religion  for  a  political  purpose  should  promote  the  Jewish 
religion  which  he  believed  to  be  identical  with  his  own.  Hence  Ezra,  the 
priest  and  chief  teacher  of  the  Eastern  Jews,  was  entrusted  with  the  task 
of  promulgating  the  Law.  He  must  have  known  to  whom  he  was  indebted 
for  that  favour.  But  the  man  in  whose  eyes  intermarriage  with  Gentiles 
was  an  unpardonable  crime  could  not  tell  that  he  owed  his  own  position 
to  such  an  intermarriage.  Moreover,  it  would  have  been  wrong  to  disclose 
the  secret  of  Esther  and  expose  his  benefactress  to  danger.  In  accepting 
Batten’s  date,  another  problem  could  be  solved.  The  edict  clothed  Ezra 
with  power  to  punish  the  disobedient  with  death,  banishment,  confiscation 
of  property,  or  imprisonment  (Ezra  7.  26).  Nevertheless  he  was  unable  to 
effect  a  single  divorce,  except  by  a  pathetic  appeal  to  the  people.  Something 
must  have  happened  in  the  meantime  which  deprived  Ezra  of  his  power. 


172  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


among  the  other  races,  who  might  by  their  rebellious  con¬ 
duct  incite  others  to  imitate  their  example.  If  the  Jews 
had  lived  together  in  large  numbers,  they  might,  indeed, 
have  risen  in  arms  against  their  oppressors,  as  they  did  in 
a  later  period,  under  the  Romans  in  Cyrene.  But  scat¬ 
tered  and  dispersed  in  all  provinces  of  the  empire  the  Jews 
were  incapable  of  offering  resistance. 

The  elevation  of  Haman  occurred  shortly  after  Esther  had  become  the  wife 
of  Artaxerxes.  We  therefore  conjecture  that  the  decree  concerning  the 
worship  of  Anahita  and  the  refusal  of  the  Jews  to  submit  to  it,  put  an  end 
to  Ezra’s  power.  We  may  further  conjecture  that  the  great  fast  the  Jews 
observed  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  Tishri  occurred  in  Ezra’s  period,  not  in 
that  of  Nehemiah.  There  was  not  the  least  reason  why  under  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  the  Jews  should  have  fasted  ‘  with  sackcloth 
and  earth  upon  them’  (Neh.  9.).  They  certainly  could  not  have  com¬ 
plained:  ^  They  have  dominion  over  our  bodies  and  over  our  cattle,  and 
we  are  in  great  distress'.  They  had  their  own  Jewish  governor,  who  was 
the  king’s  favourite,  and  certainly  did  not  oppress  them.  But  a  short  time 
after  the  arrival  of  Ezra  and  promulgation  of  the  Law,  the  news  about  the 
great  danger  to  the  Jewish  religion  reached  the  Jews  in  Judea,  and  Persian 
officials  were  sent  into  the  land  to  erect  a  sanctuary  to  Anahita.  Therefore 
they  fasted  and  made  a  covenant  among  themselves  to  resist  with  all  power 
the  execution  of  that  decree.  Therefore  Hhe  seed  of  Israel  separated 
themselves  from  the  strangers’  ;  for  ‘no  strangers  ought  to  know  that  they 
intended  to  resist  the  royal  decree  ’.  This  was  not,  as  Batten  (p.  363) 
observes :  ‘  Because  the  pure-blooded  son  of  Abraham  was  alone  a  fit 
object  for  Jahveh’s  favour’.  However,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  two 
dates  of  Esther  and  Ezra  do  not  agree  in  every  detail.  Ezra  arrived  in  the 
fifth  month  of  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  at  Jerusalem,  and  Esther 
became  queen  five  months  later.  But  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  had 
been,  as  Ed.  Meyer  and  Batten  pointed  out,  often  revised.  Thus  we  cannot 
expect  the  dates  to  be  correct  in  every  detail.  It  is  possible  that  the  edict 
of  the  promulgation  was  given  in  the  seventh  year,  but  Ezra’s  arrival  at 
Jerusalem  occurred  in  the  fifth  month  of  the  eighth  year  of  that  king’s 
reign.  The  preparations  for  such  an  enormous  expedition  must  have  taken 
a  year  at  least.  Thus  if  we  accept  Batten’s  date  of  Ezra  in  the  light  of  the 
present  writer’s  exposition  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  all  these  events  will  be 
viewed  differently,  and  numerous  problems  will  be  solved  (cf.  chapter  V, 
n,  51). 

No  commentator  has  as  yet  satisfactorily  explained  the  passage : 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTFIER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 73 


‘And  Haman  said  unto  King  Ahasuerus,  There  is  a  Esthers.  8. 
certain  people  scattered  abroad  and  dispersed  among  the 
people  in  all  the  provinces  of  thy  kingdom  ;  and  their  laws 
are  diverse  from  all  people ;  neither  keep  they  the  king’s 
laws :  therefore  it  is  not  fit  for  the  king’s  profit  to  suffer 
them.’  Haman’s  accusation  of  the  Jews  and  his  advice  to 
decree  their  extermination  were  worded  very  carefully  and 
diplomatically.  But  bis  accusation  was  absolutely  true. 

He  did  not  slander  them.  And  we  indeed  know  from  the 
Behistun  inscription®^  and  from  Herodotus®^  that  the  most 
disgraceful  deed  for  a  Persian  was  to  tell  a  lie.  Haman 
prefaced  his  accusation  by  allaying  the  king’s  fear  and  fore¬ 
stalling  any  reproach,  that  by  his  advice  he  had  plunged 
the  empire  into  anarchy,  in  stating  that  the  people  which 
defies  the  king’s  authority  is  not  dangerous  in  itself  to  the 
peace  of  the  empire,  being  scattered  and  dispersed  in  all 
the  provinces  of  the  empire.  But  by  its  disobedience  it  sets 
a  bad  example  to  others  and  destroys  the  king’s  authority. 

Our  author  seemingly  does  not  state  that  Haman  expressly 
mentioned  the  name  of  the  people  he  accused.  That  he 
actually  did  mention  it,  we  may  deduce  from  the  peculiar 
expression  literally  ‘its  being’,  and  thus  referring  to  a 
preceding  noun.®®  The  author  gives  only  the  substance  of 

‘There  is  one  people  scattered  and  dispersed  among  the  people’.  This 
cannot  be  a  part  of  the  accusation.  Such  a  condition  is  surely  no  crime, 
but  a  misfortune.  Nor  can  it  refer  to  the  barrier  of  the  Law,  as  Paton, 
p.  203,  explains.  The  latter  idea  is  expressed  in  the  following  sentence  : 

‘Their  laws  are  diverse  from  all  people’.  Hence  that  passage  expresses 
the  idea  of  disregard  ;  their  condition  is  so  pitiful  as  not  to  fear  their 
resistance. 

Behistun  inscription,  col.  54  ff. 

Herodotus  I,  139. 

The  expression  does  not  mean  ‘  there  is  ’.  The  same  form  occurs 
also  elsewhere  three  times  (Dcut.  29.  14;  i  Sam.  14.  39;  23.  23),  where 


174  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  3. 

13- 


Haman’s  report,  which,  of  course,  exhaustively  dealt  with 
the  Jewish  problem.  Herodotus  or  any  Greek  writer  would 
have  used  for  this  report  a  full  chapter. 

If  we  had  no  proof  that  Haman  aimed  at  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  Jewish  religion  and  not  of  the  Jewish  race,  we 
could  deduce  his  intention  from  the  words  of  his  accusa¬ 
tion  in  stating :  ‘  their  laws  are  diverse  from  all  people ; 
neither  keep  they  the  king’s  laws  The  first  part  of  this 
statement  is  no  accusation.  It  is  no  concern  of  the  king, 
whether  the  laws  of  this  people  are  peculiar  or  not,  as  long 
as  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  laws  of  the  empire.  But 
Haman  asserted  that  those  laws  are  contrary  to  those  of  the 
empire,  and  prevent  them  from  complying  with  the  latter. 
Thus,  there  must  have  been  Persian  laws  inconsistent  with 
those  of  the  Jews.  Here  we  have  a  further  corroboration 
of  our  description  of  the  events  of  the  period  in  which 
the  Jewish  religious  conceptions  came  into  conflict  with  the 
Persian  laws.  But  if  the  Jewish  religion  is  obnoxious  to 
the  welfare  of  the  empire,  it  cannot  be  tolerated  and  must 
be  suppressed,  and  the  king  would  certainly  have  answered  : 
‘  Let  them  abandon  their  religion,  and  if  they  refuse,  you 
have  my  permission  to  destroy  them.’  This  is  exactly  what 
Haman  requested  the  king  to  do,  in  continuing  to  say: 
‘It  is  harmful  to  the  king’s  authority  to  be  indifferent 
toward  their  transgression  of  the  Persian  laws  ’. 

Haman  certainly  was  an  enemy  of  the  ‘Jews’,  as  the 
author  styles  him  (D^'i’iiTn  TilVj,  but  not  of  those  of  Jewish 
extraction,  as  soon  as  they  ceased  to  be  ‘  Jews  ’,  in  abandon¬ 
ing  their  religion.  Now  it  is  true  the  style  of  Haman’s 

it  refers  to  a  preceding  noun.  See  chapter  III  on  the  impossible  assumption 
that  the  king  should  have  condemned  a  people  to  extermination  whose 
name  he  did  not  know. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 75 


decree  is  so  sanguinary  as  to  represent  him  as  the  very 
embodiment  of  wickedness.  But  Haman  is  not  responsible 
for  that  style,  nor  is  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 
The  heaping  of  synonymous  expressions,  ‘  to  exterminate, 
to  kill,  and  to  destroy’  (13N71  inni?  is  inconsistent 

with  the  terse  style  of  edicts.  Haman  s  decree  must  have 
been  worded  differently.  Our  author  was  a  good  historian 
and  well  acquainted  with  the  style  of  edicts.  Even  if 
Haman  had  intended  to  exterminate  the  Jewish  people 
without  regard  to  their  religion,  there  was  no  reason  for  the 
murder  of  little  children.  They  could  have  been  sold  as 
slaves,  and  thus  be  of  more  profit  to  Haman  or  the  people. 
Those  exaggerations  are  certainly  due  to  late  interpolators, 
as  suggested  in  the  first  chapter.  The  Greek  version  of  our 
story  has,  no  doubt,  the  original  text  of  this  passage.  For 
it  tersely  states,  as  we  should  expect,  d(j)avL<TaL  to  yeuo? 
tS>v  'lovBaicov.  Accordingly,  the  original  Hebrew  text  of 
this  edict  must  have  been  CTinM  {nv)  riN  nnxi?,  ‘to  destroy 
(the  people  of)  the  Jews’,  or  a  similar  phrase.  It  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  notice  how  consistent  both  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  versions  are.  The  former  explains  the  hatred  of 
Haman  towards  the  Jews,  by  the  statement:  ‘And  he 
thought  scorn  to  lay  hands  on  Mordecai  alone ;  for  they 
had  showed  him  the  people  of  Mordecai  ’.  We  have 
already  remarked  that  this  improbable  explanation  is  a 
late  interpolation  at  a  time  when  the  real  cause  of  Haman’s 
action  was  no  longer  known.  A  man  who  is  able  to 
destroy  a  whole  race  on  account  of  a  single  individual  who 
insulted  him,  is  certainly  to  be  credited  with  any  inhuman 
monstrosity.  The  Alexandrian  translator,  however,  did  not 
know  of  that  passage,  and  in  accordance  with  this,"  the 
version  of  Haman’s  decree  is  not  sanguinary. 


176  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 3, 9.  Having  convinced  the  king  that  the  conduct  of  the  Jews 

could  not  be  tolerated,  Haman  submitted  this  proposal : 

‘  If  it  please  the  king,  let  it  be  written  that  they  may  be 
destroyed  :  and  I  will  pay  ten  thousand  talents  of  silver 
to  the  hands  of  those  that  have  the  charge  of  the  business, 
to  bring  it  into  the  king’s  treasuries’.  If  the  Jews  were 
disloyal  subjects  and  according  to  law  deserved  to  be 
exterminated,  why  should  Haman  promise  ten  thousand 
talents  for  the  royal  permission  to  rid  the  empire  of 
criminals  ?  Though  the  victims  of  the  persecutions  may 
have  numbered  many  thousands,  nevertheless  they  repre¬ 
sented,  as  we  observed,  merely  a  very  small  portion  of  the 
Jewish  communities  throughout  the  wide  dominions  of 
the  Persian  empire.  We  have  no  census  of  the  Jews  of 
that  period,  but  at  a  very  conservative  estimate,  they  must 
have  numbered  many  hundreds  of  thousands.^^  The  aver¬ 
age  Jews  submitted  with  a  bad  grace  to  the  innovation,  as 
the  Rabbis  correctly  perceived,  since  they  saw  in  the 
worship  of  Anahita  a  mere  formality  forced  upon  them, 
and  had  no  inclination  to  expose  themselves  to  persecu¬ 
tion  by  their  refusal.  Thus  the  friendly  relations  between 
them  and  the  Gentiles  were  not  disturbed.  This  being  sOj 
it  was  doubtful  whether  Gentiles  in  many  localities,  seeing 
no  reason  for  the  wholesale  massacre  of  their  Jewish  friends 
and  neighbours  against  whom  they  felt  no  animosity,  would 

About  140  years  before  that  event,  the  Jews  who  returned  from  the 
captivity'  numbered  42.360  (Ezra  2.  64).  The  larger  part  of  them  had  no 
inclination  to  leave  Babylonia  and  expose  themselves  to  the  laborious  task 
of  rebuilding  the  home  of  their  ancestors.  It  is  a  low  estimate  to  assume 
that  about  100,000  stayed  behind,  who  preferred  to  move  into  the  interior 
provinces  of  the  immense  empire,  where  as  merchants  they  had  the  best 
opportunity  of  accumulating  riches.  Thus  within  140  years  they  may  have 
increased  to  a  number  of  many  hundred  thousands,  at  the  lowest  estimate. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 77 


not  resent  those  edicts  and  prevent  their  execution.  The 
Jews,  assisted  by  the  population,  could  easily  offer  resis¬ 
tance  against  the  force  entrusted  with  the  execution  of  those 
edicts.  Therefore,  to  be  sure  of  success,  Haman  appealed 


to  the  lowest  passion  of  the  people — greed.  The  lower 
strata,  which  form  everywhere  a  considerable,  if  not  the 
major,  portion  of  the  populace,  are  always  willing  to  go  to 
any  extent,  if  they  are  afforded  an  opportunity  of  enriching 
themselves  at  the  expense  of  their  wealthy  fellow-citizens. 
The  Jews  being  mostly  engaged  in  commerce  were  reputed 
to  be  very  wealthy.  In  granting  permission  to  the  popu¬ 
lace  to  keep  the  property  of  the  Jews,  Haman  could  reckon 
with  full  certainty  on  the  carrying  out  of  his  edicts  to  the 
letter.®^  But  how  could  he  dispose  of  their  property  ?  If 
the  Jews  were  condemned  for  their  disloyalty,  they  were 
traitors,  and  their  goods  had  to  be  confiscated  to  the  trea¬ 
sury.®^  Thus  it  was  necessary  to  reimburse  the  treasury 
for  the  loss  it  would  have  sustained  by  Haman’s  largess  to 
the  populace. 

Have  we  ground  to  consider — as  many  commentators 
do®^ — the  sum  of  ten  thousand  talents  as  an  estimate  of  the 
Jews’  wealth,  which  would  amount  to  about  eighteen  million 
dollars,  an  exaggeration  and  incredible  ?  As  far  as  the 
Jews’  wealth  is  concerned,  the  estimate  was  far  too  low. 
Concerning  Haman’s  ability  to  supply  that  sum  of  his  own 
means,  if  we  believe  Herodotus  that  the  Lydian  Pythius 
offered  Xerxes  for  his  campaign  against  the  Greeks  ‘  two 

Paton,  p.  209,  correctly  explains  :  ‘  This  is  offered  as  an  inducement 
to  the  people  to  attack  the  Jews.’ 

The  property  of  criminals  was  confiscate!  by  the  State.  See 
Herodotus  III,  129,  and  Josephus,  Antiquities^  XII,  i.  4. 

Cf.  Haupt,  Piirim,  p.  6  ;  Paton,  p.  206,  and  others. 

H.  N 


178  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  3. 
10,  II. 


thousand  talents  of  silver,  and  of  gold  four  million  Daric 
staters,  wanting  seven  thousand’,®^  which  would  amount  to 
about  twenty-four  million  dollars,®^  we  have  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  statement  of  our  author."^^  We  may  recall  the 
immense  fortunes  the  Roman  governors  amassed  in  a  few 
years.  The  Persian  satraps  had  the  same  opportunities. 
Haman  was  no  doubt  a  satrap  before  he  became  prime 
minister.  We  may  assume  that  his  father  and  his  pro¬ 
genitors  had  served  in  the  same  capacity.  Thus  he  may 
have  possessed  untold  riches. 

‘  And  the  king  took  his  ring  from  his  hand,  and  gave  it 
unto  Haman  the  son  of  Hammedatha  the  Agagite,  the 
Jews’  enemy.  And  the  king  said  unto  Haman,  ‘The  silver 
is  given  to  thee,  the  people  also,  to  do  with  them  as  it 
seemeth  good  to  thee .’  By  Haman’s  offer,  the  king 
became  convinced  of  his  unselfish  motives,  and  fully 
granted  his  request  to  rid  the  empire  of  those  internal 
enemies.  We  might,  perhaps,  doubt  the  statement  of  the 
king’s  generosity  in  bestowing  upon  Haman  a  gift  of  ten 
thousand  talents.  But  we  find  a  similar  statement  by 
Herodotus  of  Xerxes’  generosity,  who  declined  the  offer 
of  the  Lydian  and  said  :  ‘  The  seven  thousand  staters  which 
are  wanting  to  make  up  thy  four  millions  I  will  supply,  so 
that  the  full  tale  may  be  no  longer  lacking  and  thou  mayest 
owe  the  completion  of  the  sum  to  me.  Continue  to  enjoy 
all  that  thou  hast  acquired  hitherto 

Herodotus,  VII,  27-9. 

Cf.  G.  Rawlinson,  Herodotus,  vol.  HI,  p.  25,  n.  1.  According  to 
Cassel,  p.  no,  however,  the  sum  that  Pythius  offered  to  Xerxes  would 
be  9,986  talents,  thus  about  equivalent  to  that  offered  by  Haman  to 
Artaxerxes  ;  for  five  darics  =  one  mina,  and  100  minas  =  one  talent.  As 
to  the  immense  riches  of  the  satraps,  cf.  Herod.  I,  192. 

Similarly  G.  Rawlinson  in  his  commentary  on  Esther,  1873. 

Herodotus  VII,  29. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 79 


However,  did  the  king  actually  believe  Haman’s  accu¬ 
sation  and  give  him  full  permission  to  deal  with  the  Jews 
as  he  deemed  proper,  without  any  further  investigation  ? 

The  Persians  were  certainly  reputed  in  antiquity  for  their 
high  sense  of  justice,  as  Xenophon  represented  them  in  his 
historical  romance  Cyropaedia}^^  Thus  how  could  we 
believe  that  Artaxerxes  condemned  a  whole  people  with¬ 
out  being  certain  of  their  guilt  ?  Our  author  was  not  an 
orator,  like  the  Greek  writers,  as  we  observed,  and  con¬ 
densed  Haman’s  accusation  into  a  few  sentences.  Haman 
naturally  dwelt  thoroughly  on  that  subject,  and  laid  before 
the  king  the  reports  of  the  governors  and  officials  concern¬ 
ing  the  disloyal  conduct  of  the  Jews  and  the  disturbances 
everywhere,  and  corroborated  each  point  of  his  accusation 
by  absolutely  reliable  documentary  evidence,  and,  perhaps, 
also  by  the  personal  testimony  of  many  satraps  and 
governors.  Convinced  of  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  by  that 
evidence,  and  persuaded  by  the  prime  minister  of  the 
futility  of  any  other  remedies  to  reduce  them  to  obedience, 
the  king  could  not  but  grant  Haman  the  permission  to 
exterminate  them. 

The  letters  commanding  the  Jews’  extermination  were  Esther  3. 

12-14. 

written  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  the  first  month  and  ‘  were 
sent  by  posts  into  all  the  king’s  provinces,  to  kill  ...  all 
Jews  ...  in  one  day,  even  upon  the  thirteenth  day  of  the 
twelfth  month,  which  is  the  month  Adar,  and  to  take 
the  spoil  of  them  for  a  prey.  The  copy  of  the  writing  for 
the  commandment  to  be  given  in  every  province  was 

Cf.  I,  II,  6,  7,  15  ;  I,  III,  16-18.  Though  Xenophon  actually  meant  to 
depict  the  Lacedaemonians,  nevertheless  he  never  would  have  dared  to 
attribute  those  virtues  to  the  Persians  if  they  had  not  had  a  high  reputation 
for  the  conception  of  justice. 

N  2 


l8o  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

published  unto  all  people,  that  they  should  be  ready 
against  that  day.’  Why  did  Haman  promulgate  the  decree 
about  a  year  before  its  execution?  Seeing  that  the  modern 
commentators  consider  Haman  an  inveterate  enemy  of  the 
Jewish  race,  Vv’e  expect  to  find  the  explanation  of  that  early 
promulgation  of  the  decree  as  being  directed  to  enhance 
the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  by  keeping  them  in  suspense  as 
long  as  possible.'^^  Other  commentators  believe  that  it  was 
done  to  give  the  Jews  an  opportunity  to  leave  the  country."^^ 
The  latter  explanation  is  certainly  strange.  We  cannot 
impute  to  scholars  ignorance  of  geographical  knowledge 
and  of  the  extent  of  the  Persian  empire  at  that  period. 
Seeing  that  those  scholars  identify  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes, 
the  whole  of  Asia,  with  the  exception  of  the  Ionian  free 
cities  and  islands,  and  Egypt,  were  under  Persian  dominion. 
Where  could  the  Jews  have  found  a  refuge  if  they  had  left 
the  Persian  empire?  Where  could  the  Jews  living  in 
Parthia,  Bactria,  Sogdiana,  &c.,  have  gone  ?  Those  of 
Asia  Minor  might  have  sought  a  place  of  escape  in  the 

Ionian  free  cities.  Would  the  latter  have  admitted  them  ? 

• 

Certainly  not  as  free  citizens.  At  the  time  of  Artaxerxes, 
the  Jews  of  the  province  of  Judea  could  have  escaped  to 
Egypt,  as  their  people  did  two  hundred  years  before. 
However,  the  early  promulgation  of  the  edicts  greatly 
redounds  to  the  honour  of  Haman.  He  was  loath  to 
commit  that  wholesale  slaughter,  if  he  could  avoid  it.  His 
intention  was  to  give  the  Jews  ample  time  for  reflection 
whether  it  would  not  be  more  advisable  to  desist  from 
their  obstinacy  and  to  abandon  their  exclusive  position 
among  the  nations,  in  parting  with  their  singular  creed. 
That  early  promulgation  is  a  further  confirmation  of  our 
So  Bertheau-Ryssel  and  others. 


So  Keil,  Rawlinson. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  l8l 


exposition  of  those  events,  that  Hamans  object  was  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  religion,  which  could  not  be 
accomplished  without  destroying  the  adherents  of  this 
creed. 

‘  The  posts  went  out,  being  hastened  by  the  king’s  Esther  3. 

15. 

commandment,  and  the  decree  was  given  in  Shushan,  the 
palace.  And  the  king  and  Haman  sat  down  to  drink ;  but 
the  city  of  Shushan  was  perplexed.’  The  statement  that  the 
king  and  Haman  sat  down  to  drink  has  a  deeper  meaning 
than  generally  assumed.  The  modern  commentators  are 
on  the  wrong  track  in  explaining :  ‘  It  is  meant  as  a  very 
effective  piece  of  contrast.  Orders  have  been  sent  out  that 
will  throw  the  empire  into  confusion,  but  the  king  and  his 
prime  minister  enjoy  themselves  after  finishing  this  trouble¬ 
some  business.’  This  passage  again  shows  how  minutely 
our  author  was  acquainted  with  Persian  customs.  Hero¬ 
dotus  states :  ‘  It  is  also  their  general  practice  to  deliberate 
upon  affairs  of  weight  when  they  are  drunk ;  and  then  on 
the  following  day  when  they  are  sober,  the  decision  is  put  ' 
before  them  by  the  master  of  the  house  in  which  it  was 
made  ;  and  if  it  is  then  approved  of,  they  act  on  it ;  if  not, 
they  put  it  aside.  Sometimes,  however,  they  are  sober  at 
their  first  deliberation,  but  in  this  case  they  always  recon¬ 
sider  the  matter  under  the  influence  of  wine.’  Thus  our 
author  means  to  state  that  the  decision  to  exterminate  the 
Jews  was  made  when  the  king  and  Haman  were  sober,  and 
it  was  reconsidered  under  the  influence  of  wine.  In  the 
light  of  this  explanation  we  understand  the  meaning  of  the 
clause :  ‘  and  the  city  of  Shushan  was  perplexed  ’.  This 
passage  has  not  yet  found  any  reasonable  explanation. 

The  exegetes  cannot  believe  that  the  Gentile  population 

See  Paton,  p.  21 1. 


Herodotus  I,  133, 


1 82  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


of  the  capital  would  have  felt  any  great  grief  over  the 
destruction  of  the  Jews.  Now  the  news  reached  the  people 
that  there  was  a  deliberation  concerning  the  destruction 
of  the  Jews,  and  that  it  was  agreed  upon.  Still  it  was  not 
certain  whether  this  decision  would  not  be  set  aside  in  the 
second  deliberation  under  the  influence  of  wine.  Thus  the 
people  were  perplexed  and  kept  in  suspense ;  their  curiosity 
was  aroused.  Some  held  that  the  decision  would  stand, 
and  some  denied  ;  some  approved  and  some  disapproved  it. 
The  passage  apparently  is  not  in  the  proper  place.  We 
have,  perhaps,  to  read  :  ‘  The  king  and  Haman  sat  down  to 
drink  and  the  city  of  Shushan  was  perplexed  ;  the  posts 
went  out,  hastened  by  the  king’s  commandment,  and  the 
decree  was  given  in  Shushan  the  palace  ’  pm 

njnj  nnm  nmn  T’ym 

nn'in  However,  the  reference  to  the  second  de¬ 

liberation  under  the  influence  of  wine  may  have  been  an 
afterthought  of  our  author. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  183 


CHAPTER  VIII 


The  effect  of  the  decree  upon  Mordecai — His  sources  of  information — 
The  numerous  Jewish  eunuchs — Esther's  attitude  towards  the  calamity  of 
the  Jews — Mordecai’s  message — Esther’s  arguments — Mordecai’s  threats — 
Esther’s  compliance — Her  omission  to  request  an  audience  of  the  king — Her 
difficult  task — Her  diplomacy — Her  invitation  of  Haman — The  advice  of 
Haman’s  friends — The  gallows — The  incident  of  the  honouring  of  Mordecai — 
The  king’s  inquiry — His  suspicions  of  the  prime  minister’s  disloyalty — The 
king’s  apparel — A  lesson  in  modesty — The  king  being  ignorant  of  Mordecai’s 
creed — Haman’s  reflections — The  deliberation  under  the  influence  of  wine — 
Esther's  accusation  of  Haman — The  king’s  indecision — Haman’s  plea  with 
Esther  —  The  king’s  ridiculous  accusation  of  Haman  —  The  covering  of 
Haman’s  face — His  denunciation  by  Harbonah — A  parallel  between  Tissa- 
phernes’  and  Haman’s  fate — The  partiality  of  the  Jewish  point  of  view. 


In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  dealt  with  the  events 
which  led  to  the  promulgation  of  a  decree  for  the  ex¬ 
termination  of  the  Jews  that  almost  sealed  their  doom. 
The  reform  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion  and  the  Jews’ 
resistance  to  the  worship  of  Anahita  being  incontestably 
historical  facts,  there  is  no  room  for  doubting  the  historical 
character  of  the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews  recorded 
in  the  Book  of  Esther.  Based  upon  these  facts,  it  has 
been  pointed  out  at  the  starting-point  of  our  investigation, 
that  even  if  the  Book  of  Esther  had  never  been  written, 
historians  might  have  found  out  that  at  the  period  in 
which  we  place  that  event  the  Jews  were  threatened  with 
complete  extermination,  and  that  the  main  question  is  not 
whether  such  an  event  ever  did  happen,  but  how  the  Jews 
escaped  that  danger.  But  the  reality  of  their  escape 
cannot  be  questioned  either.  Yet  there  is  no  external 


184  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 

1-4. 


evidence  to  account  for  this  event.  Thus,  without  the 
story  of  the  Book  of  Esther  this  fact  would  be  historically 
unexplainable.  The  solution  of  this  historical  problem 
begins  with  the  fourth  chapter  of  our  story. 

4*  The  description  of  Mordecai’s  conduct  on  perceiving 
the  doom  of  his  people  seems  to  indicate  that  he  did 
reproach  himself  for  his  imprudent  conduct  toward  the 
prime  minister,  seeing  in  it  the  cause  of  the  disaster,  and 
in  repentant  mood,  as  an  expression  of  his  regret,  ‘rent 
his  clothes,  and  put  on  sackcloth  with  ashes,  and  went 
out  into  the  midst  of  the  city,  and  cried  with  a  loud  and 
a  bitter  cry’.  Such  an  interpretation  would  be  indeed 
permissible,  if  Haman’s  decree  had  been  due  to  private 
motives :  his  personal  hatred  of  Mordecai.  But  it  has 
been  sufficiently  proved  that  this  was  by  no  means  the 
case.  Thus,  concerning  this  point  also  the  conception  of 
the  commentators  is  erroneous.  Mordecai  might  have 
acted  in  the  same  manner,  even  if  he  had  never  come  in 
contact  with  Haman.  The  third  verse  of  this  chapter 
distinctly  states:.  ‘And  in  every  province,  whithersoever 
the  king’s  commandment  and  his  decree  came,  there  was 
great  mourning  among  the  Jews,  and  fasting,  and  weeping, 
and  wailing ;  and  many  lay  in  sackcloth  and  ashes  ’.  It 
is  thus  seen  that  many  other  Jews,  who  never  came  into 
collision  with  the  author  of  the  decree;  and  had  no  reason 
for  self-reproach,  did  exactly  the  same.  Being  at  the 
court,  Mordecai  knew  that  Haman’s  decree  was  not 
actuated  by  personal  revenge.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  ineffectual  fines,  imprisonments,  and  executions 
of  those  Jews,  who  refused  to  recognize  the  godhead  of 
Anahita  should  go  on  for  ever.  A  crisis  w^s  inevitable. 

t 

Being  the  first  to  learn  of  Haman’s  decree,  Mordecai  went 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  185 


into  the  city  to  inform  his  brethren  of  it,  and  to  deliberate 
with  them  on  the  proper  measures  to  be  taken  for  its 
repeal.  Here  he  bitterly  complained  to  the  population 
at  the  wrong  done  to  the  Jews,  and  no  doubt  vehemently 
denounced  the  prime  minister  for  his  inhuman  decree, 
appealing  to  the  compassion  of  the  populace,  in  whose 
hands  the  destiny  of  the  Jews  lay.  This  may  be  the  real 
meaning  of  the  passage :  ‘  And  he  cried  with  a  loud  and  a 
bitter  cry  ’  (n^iOI  npyi  pyn).^  Not  being  decently  dressed, 
Mordecai  could  not  enter  the  king’s  gate :  ‘  for  none  might 
enter  within  the  king^s  gate  clothed  with  sackcloth  It 
might  appear  as  if  Mordecai  had  become  indifferent  to 
public  opinion,  being  unconcerned  whether  the  people 
should  ridicule  his  behaviour  or  not,  when  he  was  making 
a  spectacle  of  himself,  in  sitting  before  the  king’s  gate 

^  The  exegetic  addition  of  the  Greek  version  :  ‘  Saying,  an  innocent 
people  is  condemned  to  death  is  well  conceived,  since  Mordecai  could  not 
have  acted  in  that  manner,  without  expressing  the  reason  for  his  grief  in 
some  way.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  after  rt'lDI  npVt  pyp*l  we  would 

expect  ;  cf.  Gen.  27.  34  ,  .  ,  ,  IND  IV  ni'O)  npVV  py^'1 . 

For  the  various  additions  of  the  Targumin,  see  Paton,  p.  213  f.  Cf.,  how¬ 
ever,  Cassel,  p.  134. 

2  The  royal  court  was  not  a  lounging  place  for  beggars  and  tramps,  and 
only  richly  or  well-dressed  people  were  permitted  to  enter  there.  We  are 
not  distinctly  informed  whether  Mordecai  did  make  any  attempt  to  enter 
within  the  gate  and  was  refused  admittance  by  the  guards.  But  he  evidently 
did  not.  If  he  had  claimed  admittance  as  an  official  in  this  strange  attire, 
he  probably  would  have  been  arrested  for  debasing  his  official  dignity. 
Cassel,  p.  137,  thinks  that  sackcloth  was  a  sign  of  mourning  for  the  dead, 
which  was  considered  ceremonially  unclean,  and  for  this  reason  Mordecai 
could  not  enter  the  palace.  So  also  Paton,  p.  214,  But  it  was  well  known 
that  Mordecai  did  not  mourn  for  a  dead  person.  We  might  as  well  maintain 
that  no  weeping  person  could  have  entered  within  the  king’s  gate.  We 
may  perhaps  suggest  that  being  an  official,  Mordecai  had  to  wear  a  certain 
court  dress  or  the  military  dress  of  the  guards,  and  therefore  could  not  enter 
attired  in  sackcloth. 


l86  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther 

6-8. 


dressed  in  sackcloth.  It  seems  more  likely,  however,  that 
Mordecai’s  very  intention  was  to  arouse  the  curiosity  of 
the  people  by  his  sensational  conduct.  He  was  well  aware 
of  the  fact  that  the  condition  of  the  Jews  was  hopeless, 
if  Esther  could  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  intercede  for  them 
with  the  king.  But  he  could  not  communicate  at  will 
with  Esther.  His  only  means  of  communication  with  her 
was  to  send  her  occasionally  a  message  through  one  of 
her  confidential  eunuchs,  if  he  happened  to  see  one,  or 
when  she  desired  to  communicate  with  him.  Therefore, 
Mordecai  expected  that  his  strange  conduct  attracting 
general  attention  would  not  fail  to  reach  one  of  her  con¬ 
fidential  eunuchs,  who,  of  course,  would  inform  his  mistress 
of  it.  The  latter’s  curiosity  being  aroused,  she  would 
certainly  send  somebody  to  him  to  learn  the  reason  for 
this  conduct.  Then  there  would  be  an  opportunity  to 
inform  her  of  Haman’s  decree,  and  to  request  her  to  inter¬ 
cede  with  the  king  on  behalf  of  the  Jews. 

‘  So  Hathach  went  forth  to  Mordecai  unto  the  broad 
place  of  the  city,  which  was  before  the  king’s  gate.  And 
Mordecai  told  him  of  all  that  had  happened  unto  him, 
and  the  exact  sum  of  the  money  that  Haman  had  promised 
to  pay  to  the  king’s  treasuries  for  the  Jews  to  destroy 
them.  Also  he  gave  him  the  copy  of  the  writing  of  the 
decree  that  was  given  out  in  Shushan  to  destroy  them, 
to  show  it  unto  Esther,  and  to  declare  it  unto  her;  and 
to  charge  her  that  she  should  go  in  unto  the  king,  to  make 
supplication  unto  him,  and  to  make  request  before  him, 
for  her  people.^  According  to  this  statement,  Mordecai 
had  been  informed  not  merely  of  the  decree  published  in 
Susa,  which  was  generally  known,  but  also  of  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  issuing  of  this  decree,  which  could  scarcely 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  187 

have  been  generally  known.  The  question  now  arises : 
What  secret  sources  of  information  were  at  the  disposal 
of  Mordecai  that  enabled  him  to  inform  Esther,  how 
Haman  had  obtained  his  decree?  For  the  answer  to  this 
question,  which  has  an  im.portant  bearing  on  the  veracity 
of  other  passages  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  it  is  necessary 
to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  institution  of  the  eunuchs 
in  the  Persian  period. 

It  would  seem  reasonable  to  regard  the  statements 
concerning  Haman’s  casting  of  the  lots,  his  speech  to 
Ahasuerus,  and  his  deliberations  with  his  friends,  of  no 
more  historical  value  than  the  speeches  Herodotus  ascribed 
to  Otanes,  Megabyzus,  &c.,  on  the  occasion  of  Darius’ 
election.^  This  is,  indeed,  the  consensus  of  all  modern 
commentators.  A  due  consideration  of  the  historical  con¬ 
ditions,  however,  will  make  it  evident  that  the  statements 
of  the  Book  of  Esther  ought  to  be  judged  differently  from 
those  of  Herodotus.  We  know  from  Herodotus  that 
Babylonia’s  annual  tribute  to  the  Persian  empire  was  a 
thousand  talents  of  silver  and  five  hundred  boy-eunuchs.^ 
Now  it  seems  improbable  that  there  should  have  been  a 
large  number  of  eunuchs  of  Persian  origin,^  as  Herodotus 
states:  ‘Next  to  prowess  in  arms,  it  is  regarded  as  the 
greatest  proof  of  manly  excellence  to  be  the  father  of 
many  sons.  Every  year  the  king  sends  rich  gifts  to  the 
man  who  can  show  the  largest  number.’  ^  The  same  idea 

^  Herodotus  III,  80.  81  ;  see  G.  Rawlinson,  II,  p.  393,  n.  3. 

^  Ibid.^  Ill,  93.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Herodotus  visited  Babylonia 
during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  I,  his  statement  on  this  point  may  be  accepted 
as  strictly  historical. 

^  Ed.  Meyer  {G.A.j  III,  p.  41)  thinks  that  there  were  also  Persian 
eunuchs.  It  is  possible  that  by  way  of  punishing  officials  or  even  common 
people,  their  children  were  condemned  to  be  made  eunuchs. 

®  Herodotus  I,  136. 


l88  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


has  survived  in  Persia  to  the  present  day.  Sir  Henry 
Rawlinson  observes :  ‘  The  greatest  misfortune,  indeed, 
that  can  befall  a  man  in  Persia  is  to  be  childless.’  ^  There¬ 
fore  it  is  unlikely  that  any  Persian  would  have  voluntarily 
offered  one  of  his  children  to  be  made  a  eunuch.  This 
class  consisted,  as  a  rule,  of  foreigners,  who  as  Ed.  Meyer 
points  out,  very  often  adopted  Persian  names.^  The  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  that  the  foreign  boys  who 
were  made  eunuchs  at  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar  were 
taught  the  learning  and  the  tongue  of  the  Chaldeans,  and 
were  given  Chaldean  names,^  merely  records  a  general 
custom  of  antiquity,  and  it  is  very  likely  that  the  same 
custom  prevailed  artiong  the  Persians,  so  that  the  eunuchs 
were  given  not  only  Persian  names  but  also  a  Persian 
education. 

However,  the  Persians  were  not  the  only  race  who 
looked  upon  childlessness  as  a  curse  and  disgrace.  The 
same  was  true  of  the  Semites.  ‘  What  wilt  thou  give  me, 
seeing  that  I  am  going  childless  complained  Abraham.^® 
To  pass  away  childless  is  a  punishment  for  certain  kinds 


In  G.  Rawlinson’s  Herodotus  L,  p.  214,  n.  8. 

8  G.A.,  III,  p.  41. 

®  Daniel  i.  4,  7.  However,  of  the  names  mentioned  there  as  being 
given  to  Daniel,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah,  only  the  first  Belteshazzar 
seems  to  be  a  genuine  Chaldean  name,  corresponding  to  cuneiform 
shar-usur  ‘  Protect  the  life  of  the  king  !’  while  the  last  name  Abed-nego,  if 
corrupted  or  intentionally  changed  from  Abdi-Nabu  ‘  Servant  of  Nebo  ’, 
would  be  properly  West  Semitic  or  Aramaic,  and  Shadrach  and  Meshach 
seem  to  contain  the  Persian  hypocoristical  affix  ke^  and  if  so  are  not 
Chaldean.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  latter  name  Meshach  seems  to  be  identical 
with  the  Hebrew  name,  Mishael  presenting  the  abbreviation  Misha  with  the 
attached  suffix  ke. 

Gen.  15.  2.  The  imputation  is,  of  course,  that  there  is  no  compensation 
for  a  calamity  of  that  kind. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  189 

of  incest.^^  Childlessness  being  considered  the  greatest 
calamity,  the  exilic  prophet  comforts  the  eunuchs  with  the 
following  words :  ‘  Neither  let  the  eunuch  say :  Behold, 
I  am  a  dry  tree.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  concerning  the 
eunuchs  that  keep  My  sabbaths,  and  choose  the  things 
that  please  Me,  and  hold  fast  by  My  covenant :  Even  unto 
them  will  I  give  in  My  house  and  within  My  walls  a 
monument  and  a  memorial  better  than  sons  and  daughters  ; 
I  will  give  them  an  everlasting  memorial  that  shall  not 
be  cut  off’.^^  The  practice  of  adoption  defined  by  many 
laws  in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  shows  that  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  as  well  as  the  Hebrews  considered  it  a  misfortune 
to  be  childless.  And  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  this 
conception  had  undergone  a  change  in  the  Neo-Babylonian 
period.  Therefore,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Babylonians 
would  have  been  willing  to  sacrifice  annually  five  hundred 
boys  to  be  made  eunuchs. 

The  Jews  who  rejoiced  at  the  downfall  of  the  Babylonian 
empire,  and  were,  of  course,  the  most  loyal  subjects  of 
the  Persians,  were  naturally  hated  by  the  Babylonians. 
The  tax-collectors,  being  most  likely  Babylonians,  and  not 
Persians,  we  may  certainly  assume  that  the  Jews  were 
forced  to  contribute  a  disproportionate  share  to  the  number 
of  the  boy-eunuchs.  These  victims,  however,  were  not  only 
not  lost  to  the  Jews,  but  were  of  the  greatest  benefit  to 
them.  Notwithstanding  the  Persian  names  and  education 
they  were  given,  they  remained,  as  far  as  possible,  either 
secretly  or  openly,  adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion.  It 

Lev.  20.  20,  21.  Isa.  56.  3-5. 

^3  Code  of  Hammurabi,  col.  XVI,  rev.  31 ;  col.  XVII,  rev.  23.  Abraham’s 
complaint,  ‘  one  born  in  my  house  is  to  be  mine  heir’  (Gen.  15.  3),  is  to  be 
understood  by  way  of  adoption,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  Babylonian 
laws,  but  not  with  those  of  Israel. 


190  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

( 

is  very  likely  that  they  acted  as  the  mediators  between 
the  Persians  and  the  Jews.  We  may  assume  that  most 
of  the  favours  granted  to  the  Jews  by  the  Persian  rulers 
were  due  to  their  influence.^^  Some  of  them  may  have 
been  leaders  in  Israel.  Marquart’s  suggestion  that  Nehemiah 
could  not  have  been  cup-bearer  of  Artaxerxes,  if  he  had 
not  been  a  eunuch, is  very  reasonable.  The  fact  that 
the  exilic  prophet  considered  it  worth  while  to  deliver  a 
Divine  message  to  the  eunuchs  leaves  no  room  for  doubt 
that  this  class  was  numerous,  and  did  not  consist  of  a  few 
scattered  individuals.  ‘  The  everlasting  memorial  ’,  that 
the  prophet  promised  them  was  scarcely  the  reward  for 
their  observance  of  the  Jewish  laws.  They  must  have 
earned  ‘the  everlasting  memorial’  in  other  ways.  How 
could  he  have  promised  them  ‘  a  monument  and  a  memorial 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  within  His  walls  if  they 
did  not  greatly  contribute  to  the  erection  and  existence 
of  ‘  this  house  and  these  walls  ’  ? 

The  eunuchs  were  better  acquainted  with  the  minutest 
details  at  the  court  than  any  Persian  and  Greek.  The 
Persian  kings  were  always  surrounded  by  eunuchs.^®  Some 

Ed.  Meyer  {G.A.,  III,  p.  41),  states  as  follows:  ‘Among  the  court 
officials,  the  eunuchs  played  a  great  part.  Many  of  them  had  been  raised 
to  highly  confidential  positions  at  the  court,  or  were  entrusted  with  important 
offices  in  the  provinces.  In  the  later  period,  under  the  rule  of  the  favourites, 
they  frequently  exercised  a  decided  and  fatal  influence  on  the  policy  of  the 
empire’.  Now  seeing  that  the  eunuchs  as  a  rule  were  of  foreign  descent, 
we  may  certainly  assume  that  the  Jewish  eunuchs  were  not  less  influential 
than  others. 

Fundamenie,  p.  36.  The  fact  that  Nehemiah  attended  the  king  as 
butler  in  the  presence  of  the  queen  (Neh.  2.  6),  leaves  little  room  for  doubt 
that  he  was  a  eunuch.  Besides,  the  personal  attendants  of  the  Persian 
kings  were,  as  a  rule,  eunuchs,  and  Nehemiah  was  most  probably  no 
exception. 

1®  Even  in  the  battle  of  Cunaxa  we  find  Artaxerxes  II  and  his  brother 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  191 


eunuchs  of  Jewish  origin  may  have  been  present  at  the 
casting  of  the  lots,  at  Haman’s  audience  with  the  king, 
at  his  deliberations  with  his  friends,  &c.  There  is  no 
improbability  involved  in  the  assumption  that  the  com¬ 
pilers  of  the  Book  of  Esther  did  base  the  details  of  this 
narrative  upon  the  testimony  of  eye-witnessesd"^  The 
compiler  may  have  been  a  eunuch  himself  who  either  in 
his  youth  was  an  eye-witness  of  these  events  or  relied 
upon  the  testimony  of  fellow-eunuchs  who  were  present. 
There  were,  no  doubt,  Greek  eunuchs  as  well,^^  and  many 
notices  concerning  Persian  events  found  in  the  works  of 
Greek  authors  may  have  been  derived  from  these  eunuchs. 
However,  the  latter  were  indifferent  to  the  events  that 
occurred  at  the  Persian  court,  if  they  did  not  have  a  special 
bearing  upon  Greek  affairs,  and  upon  other  points  their 
information  could  scarcely  have  been  exact,  while  the 
Jewish  eunuchs  were  deeply  interested  in  events,  involving 
the  fate  of  their  own  people.  Moreover,  it  is  even 
questionable  whether  a  strictly  religious  Jew  who  wrote 
for  a  religious  purpose  does  not  deserve  more  credence 

Cyrus  surrounded  by  eunuchs,  as  Satibarzanes,  whom  the  king  sent  out  to 
search  for  water,  Mesabates,  who  cut  off  Cyrus’  head  and  hand,  Pariscas, 
the  chief  eunuch  of  Cyrus,  and  the  eunuchs  who  were  mourning  over  his 
body. 

Cf.  chapter  IV.  Paton,  p.  213,  finds  no  way  of  accounting  for 
Mordecai’s  secret  sources  of  information  than  by  accepting  the  interpretation 
of  the  Targum  :  ‘  Through  Elijah  the  high-priest  ’.  Now  it  would  be  little 
short  of  arrogance  on  our  part  to  insinuate  that  scholars  who  write  com¬ 
mentaries  on  the  Book  of  Esther  are  so  little  acquainted  with  Persian  history 
as  not  to  know  of ‘the  important  part  the  eunuchs  played  in  that  period. 
But  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  modern  commentators  regard  our  narrative 
as  a  romance  written  in  the  second  century  b.  c.  e.,  and  for  this  reason  do 
not  consider  it  probable  that  the  author  had  a  proper  knowledge  of  Persian 
customs  and  institutions. 

Herodotus  VI,  32. 


192  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


than  a  Greek  eunuch  who  recounts  harem-stories  for  the 
diversion  of  some  Greek  traveller.  The  eunuch  Hathach 
who  acted  as  messenger  between  Esther  and  Mordecai  was 
no  doubt  a  Jew,  and  so  was  the  eunuch  Harbonah  who 
informed  the  king  of  the  gallows  erected  for  Mordecai. 
They  had,  of  course,  to  conceal  their  Jewish  religion, 
as  most  of  them  did,  especially  in  that  period,  but  were 
nevertheless  devoted  to  the  Jewish  cause.  Thus  it  is  seen 
that  there  is  no  historical  improbability  involved  in  assum¬ 
ing  that  Mordecai's  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  at  the 
issuing  of  Haman  s  decree  was  due  to  reliable  sources  of 
information. 

The  messages  that  were  exchanged  between  Mordecai 
and  Esther  seem  to  indicate  that  the  latter  was  more 
concerned  for  her  own  safety  than  at  the  calamity  of  the 
Jews.  We  cannot  reproach  her  for  her  point  of  view. 
Mordecai  lived  in  the  midst  of  his  people.  Seeing  con¬ 
tinually  their  misery,  his  heart  softened,  and  his  indifference 
to  the  Jewish  religion  gradually  melted  away.  Esther, 
however,  was  in  a  different  position.  Having  been  brought 
up  in  a  lax  religious  spirit,  her  elevation  to  the  rank  of 
a  queen,  and  the  separation  from  her  own  people,  could 
not  have  improved  her  religious  principles.  In  the  seclusion 
of  the  harem,  only  rumours  of  Jewish  persecutions  reached 
her,  which  could  not  make  upon  her  so  deep  an  impression 
as  upon  Mordecai  who  saw  these  persecutions  with  his  own 
eyes.  Furthermore,  we  must  consider  that  Esther  was 
now  confronted  with  a  most  difficult  task.  She  could  not 
intercede  with  the  king  on  behalf  of  the  Jews,  without 
confessing  her  origin.  In  pretending  to  be  a  Persian 
woman,  she  had  obtained  her  rank  under  false  pretences. 
If  she  had  been  certain  that  the  king  was  still  deeply  in 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I93 

love  with  her,  the  fact  that  she  had  concealed  her  origin 
might  have  been  a  matter  of  little  apprehension,  as  ‘  love 
covereth  all  sins  The  fact,  however,  that  the  king  could 
bear  the  separation  from  her  for  thirty  days,  might  have 
been  taken  as  a  sure  sign  that  his  love  was  on  the  wane,^^ 
and  that  some  other  lady  of  the  harem  had  attracted 
his  fancy.  Therefore,  Esther’s  reluctance  to  accede  to 
Mordecai’s  request  is  no  proof  of  a  callous  disposition,  and 
does  not  impugn  her  character.’  She  hesitated  to  expose 
her  position  and,  perhaps  her  life,  for  the  cause  of  her 
people;  without  being  convinced  of  her  ability  to  help 
them. 

On  being  informed  of  her  cousin’s  strange  conduct, 
Esther  rightly  guessed  that  it  must  have  been  caused  by 
some  unprecedented  calamity  of  the  Jews,  ‘  and  exceedingly 
writhed  in  anxiety  ’.  Mordecai’s  policy  of  concealing  his 
connexion  with  the  Jewish  people,  and  especially  after  her 
elevation,  for  the  purpose  of  guaranteeing  her  safety,  was 
well  known  to  her.  But  the  fact  that  Mordecai  acted 
in  so  sensational  a  manner  was  a  sure  indication  of  some 
unforeseen  occurrence  that  left  him  no  choice  but  to  identify 
himself  with  his  persecuted  brethren.  This  being  the  case, 
Esther  now  became  apprehensive  for  her  own  person. 
She  correctly  assumed  that  she  would  be  called  upon  to 
intercede  with  the  king  for  her  people  and  thus  be  forced 
to  reveal  her  own  origin  and  religion. 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  Esther  did  not  ask  for 
any  explanation,  on  being  informed  of  Mordecai’s  strange 
conduct,  but  merely  ‘  sent  raiment  to  clothe  Mordecai,  and 

Keil,  p.  639,  likewise  suggests  that  Esther  thought  that  she  was  not 
in  special  favour  with  the  king  for  the  reason  of  not  having  been  summoned 
to  him  for  thirty  days. 

H. 


O 


194  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  4 
5-9- 


to  take  his  sackcloth  from  off  him  She  did  this  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  him  to  enter  the  king’s  court,  where 
her  messenger  might  confer  with  hirh  secretly  and  not  in 
the  presence  of  all  the  people — not,  however,  ‘  for  the 
purpose  of  communicating  with  him  personally  Esther 
was  still  inclined  to  continue  as  long  as  possible  the  old 
policy  of  concealing  her  origin  and  religion.  Mordecai, 
however,  desired  just  the  contrary,  that  Esther  should 
imitate  his  example  and  throw  off  her  disguise.  Her 
intercession  with  the  king  being  now  the  only  hope  of  the 
Jews,  he  insisted  upon  staking  her  position  and  even  her 
life  for  the  achievement  of  their  deliverance.  Therefore 
Mordecai  refused  to  accept  the  raiment  sent  by  Esther,* 
by  this  refusal  plainly  indicating  his  unconcern  at  en¬ 
dangering  her  position  by  his  conduct. 

‘Then  called  Esther  for  Hathach,  one  of  the  king’s 
eunuchs,  whom  he  had  appointed  to  attend  upon  her,  and 
charged  him  to  go  to  Mordecai,  to  know  what  this  was, 
and  why  it  was  ’.  Thereupon  Mordecai  informed  this 
messenger,  in  the  first  place,  of  his  personal  affairs,  ‘  of  all 
that  had  happened  unto  him  ’.  He  explained  to  him  the 
reason  that  had  forced  him  to  reveal  his  identity.  From 


2°  This  is  the  interpretation  of  Siegfried,  p,  156,  Wildeboer,  p.  186,  and  the 
same  view  is  held  by  Paton,  p.  217,  who  observes  :  ‘  The  author  assumes  that 
Mordecai  could  hold  an  interview  with  Esther,  provided  that  he  were  properly 
dressed  This,  however,  is  decidedly  wrong.  Our  author  knew  Oriental 
customs  better  than  to  assume  anything  of  that  sort.  Otanes  could  not 
communicate  with  his  own  daughter  Phaedima  personally,  as  we  know 
from  Herodotus  III,  68-69.  Moreover,  if  the  sackcloth  was  the  orjly 
hindrance  to  a  personal  interview  with  Esther,  why  did  not  Mordecai 
accept  the  raiment  that  Esther  sent  him  ?  He  surely  could  not  have  been 
so  unreasonably  stubborn  in  that  respect  to  let  the  chance  of  a  personal 
interview  with  Esther  pass  on  account  of  the  sackcloth  that  he  was  wearing 
as  a  sign  of  mourning. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  I95 

the  fact  that  Esther  had  no  previous  knowledge  of 
Mordecai’s  contact  with  Haman  we  may  conclude  that 
they  had  not  been  in  communication  for  a  considerable 
time.^^  Mordecai  further  informed  Hathach  of  ‘  the  exact 
sum  of  the  money  that  Haman  had  promised  to  pay  to 
the  king’s  treasuries  for  the  Jews,  to  destroy  them’.  Now 
this  fact  Mordecai  could  not  have  learned  from  the  decree. 
The  offer  of  Haman  being  a  private  matter  between  him¬ 
self  and  the  king,  and  furthermore  being  renounced  by  the 
latter,  in  saying  ‘  the  silver  is  given  to  thee  could  not 
have  been  mentioned  in  the  decree.  This  supports  our 
contention  that  Mordecai  had  been  informed  of  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  at  the  issuing  of  the  decree  by  one  of  the 
Jewish  eunuchs  who  was  present  at  Haman’s  accusation 
of  the  Jews  and  thus  knew  of  this  offer.  The  latter  offer, 
Haman’s  willingness  to  indemnify  the  royal  treasury  for 
the  loss  it  would  sustain  by  leaving  the  property  of  the 
Jews  to  the  Gentiles  who  would  be  willing  to  execute 
the  royal  decree,  made  the  condition  of  the  Jews  wellnigh 
hopeless,  as  was  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
Their  property  given  to  the  Gentiles,  they  could  nowhere 
reckon  upon  their  assistance.  In  informing  Esther  of 
Haman’s  offer,  Mordecai’s  intention  was  to  impress  upon 
her  mind  the  utter  hopelessness  of  her  people’s  condition. 
Otherwise,  Esther  might  have  comforted  herself  with  the 
thought  that  the'  population  would  neither  permit  nor  be 
a  party  to  the  execution  of  so  inhuman  a  decree,  or  that 
the  king  would  not  be  indifferent  to  the  loss  of  the  royal 
treasury  and  would  repeal  the  decree.  Finally,  Mordecai 

This  would  bear  out  our  contention  that  Mordecai  could  not  com¬ 
municate  with  Esther  except  by  means  of  her  confidential  eunuchs,  when  he 
occasionally  saw  one  of  them. 

O  1 


I 


196  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

handed  over  to  Hathach  ‘  the  copy  of  the  writing  of  the 
decree  that  was  given  out  in  Shushan  to  destroy  them, 
to  show  it  unto  Esther,  and  to  declare  it  unto  her  This 
was  not  done  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  Esther  of  the 
actuality  of  the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews,  but  for 
another  reason.  There  must  have  been,  as  we  shall  further 
see,  a  special  decree  for  the  capital  of  the  empire  which 
was  more  severe  than  that  given  out  for  the  provinces.^^ 

Esther  4.  However,  notwithstanding  the  urgency  of  Mordecai’s 
10-12. 

request  and  the  knowledge  of  all  these  facts,  Esther  was 
not  willing  to  comply  with  his  entreaties  :  ‘  That  she  should 
go  in  unto  the  king,  to  make  supplication  unto  him,  and 
to  make  request  before  him,  for  her  people  \  She  explained 
that  there  were  two  reasons  that  prevented  her  from  under¬ 
taking  this  task.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  impossible  to 
enter  the  royal  inner  court  without  being  expressly  sum¬ 
moned  by  the  king,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  supplication 
to  the  king  would  be  of  no  avail  in  having  the  desired 
effect,  as  apparently  the  king  no  longer  cared  for  her^  since 
he  could  stay  away  from  her  for  a  period  of  thirty  days. 
However,  notwithstanding  these  drawbacks  which  did  not 
augur  well  for  the  success  of  her  petition,  Mordecai  still 
insisted  upon  her  intercession  with  the  king.  From  his 
own  point  of  view,  Mordecai  had  to  insist  upon  his  demand. 

22  See  chapter  IX.  Paton,  p.  218,  is  wrong  in  translating 
‘and  to  explain  to  her’,  and  suggesting  that  Esther  was  unable  to  read 
Persian,  so  that  Hathach  had  to  both  hand  over  the  decree  to  Esther  and  to 
interpret  to  her  its  contents.  Paton  evidently  overlooked  the  fact  that 
Hathach  was  charged  with  a  twofold  message,  firstly  to  show  her  the 
decree,  and  secondly  to  repeat  to  her  Mordecai’s  report  concerning  his 
own  experiences  with  Haman  and  the  money  that  the  latter  had  offered  the 
king,  and  if  so,  our  author  could  not  have  expressed  himself  differently  : 

‘  The  copy  of  the  decree  ....  to  show  it  unto  Esther  and  to  report  to  her  ’ 
the  other  matters.  Thus  ill?  refers  to  *1^  nyi. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  1 97 


Esther’s  supplication  was  the  last  and  only  hope  of  the 
Jews,  though  under  the  circumstances  pointed  out  by  her, 
her  success  in  prevailing  upon  the  king  to  avert  the  danger 
impending  over  them  was  somewhat  questionable.  Never¬ 
theless,  Esther’s  refusal  to  accede  to  Mordecai’s  demand 
was  not  without  justification  either.  The  proverbial  saying, 
a  drowning  man  will  catch  at  a  straw,  may  be  true.  But 
we  ought  to  consider  that,  if  the  straw  had  a  mind  of  its 
own,  it  would  certainly  refuse  to  be  caught  at  and  drawn 
down.  Being  convinced  of  the  futility  of  her  attempt  at 
saving  her  people,  Esther  rightly  refused  to  expose  and 
sacrifice  herself  in  vain. 

Seeing  Esther  determined  on  not  incurring  any  danger 
unless  sure  of  attaining  her  purpose,  Mordecai  saw  no 
other  course  but  to  force  her  to  that  step  by  threats, 
saying :  ‘  Think  not  with  thyself  that  thou  shalt  escape 
in  the  king’s  house,  more  than  all  the  Jews.  For  if  thou 
altogether  boldest  thy  peace  at  this  time,  then  will  relief 
and  deliverance  arise  to  the  Jews  from  another  place,  but 
thou  and  thy  father’s  house  will  perish  ’.  By  these  words, 
Mordecai  meant  to  imply  that  by  holding  aloof  from  her 
people,  Esther  would  not  escape  the  fate  she  feared  by 
interceding  for  them.  Seeing  no  means  of  preserving  their 
religion,  the  Jews  would,  of  course,  for  the  time  being,  be 
compelled  to  abandon  it,  rather  than  sacrifice  their  exis¬ 
tence  for  its  sake,  and  would  hope  for  a  change  in  govern¬ 
ment  or  in  its  policy,  when  they  could  avow  it  again. — 
Most  of  the  Jews  did  the  same  under  similar  circumstances 
at  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. — In  this  way,  they 
would  be  saved,  without  her  intercession.  But,  having  been 
forsaken  by  her  in  the  hour  of  their  despair,  the  Jews 
would  certainly  avenge  themselves,  and  reveal  to  the  king 


Esther  4. 

13-14* 


V 


Esther 

15-16. 


198  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

the  deception  practised  upon  him.  Then  she  and  her 
accomplices  in  this  fraud,  ‘  her  father’s  house  namely 

Mordecai  himself  and  his  family,  would  lose  their  lives.^'^ 

• 

Consequently,  it  would  be  less  dangerous  to  confess  freely 
her  deception,  and  to  throw  herself  on  the  king’s  mercy.  In 
order  to  encourage  her,  Mordecai  suggested  the  possibility 
that  she  might  have  been  providentially  raised  to  this 
exalted  position  for  the  purpose  of  saving  her  people  in 
this  emergency,  saying :  ‘  and  who  knoweth  whether  thou 
art  not  come  to  royal  estate  for  such  a  time  as  this  ?  ’ 
The  sceptical  expression  ‘  who  knoweth  ’  (VTi'*  ''D),  is  quite 
in  keeping  with  Mordecai’s  character  as  outlined  above. 
He  does  not  seem  to  trust  implicitly  in  Providence,  or 
perhaps  doubts  the  justice  of  the  Jewish  cause. 

Being  impressed  with  Mordecai’s  argument,  that  the 
refusal  to  endanger  herself  by  revealing  her  origin  and 
religion,  for  the  sake  of  hei*  people,  would  inevitably  lead 
to  her  destruction,  Esther  chose  the  lesser  evil,  in  following 

Mordecai’s  advice,  saying:  ‘If  I  perish,  I  perish’,  in  any 

% 

case  (•’max  However,  she  did  not  believe  in 

the  advisability  of  this  step  and  despaired  of  the  success 
of  her  mission.  Now  religion  is  the  last  refuge  in  despair, 
even  among  people  of  sceptical  disposition.  Esther  was  in 
this  respect  no  exception,  saying :  ‘  Go,  gather  together  all 

23  Mordecai  scarcely  referred  to  a  special  divine  judgement  inflicted  upon 
her  for  neglecting  her  duty  toward  her  people,  since  her  father’s  house 
could  not  be  punished  on  account  of  her  wrongs.  Siegfried,  p.  158,  is 
evidently  mixed  up  in  his  interpretation,  and  seems  to  have  read  flN  nnill 
rT’Ill  •  now,  however,  thou  and  thy  father’s  house  will  perish 
with  the  Jews  ’.  He  seems  to  have  overlooked  Mordecai’s  observation  that 
‘  then  will  relief  and  deliverance  arise  to  the  Jews  from  another  place’.  As 
to  his  remark,  why  no  allowance  is  made  for  the  possibility  that  the  king 
will  make  an  exception  in  Esther’s  favour,  it  rests  on  the  current  interpreta¬ 
tion  that  Haman’s  decree  aimed  at  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  race. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  199 

the  Jews  that  are  present  in  Shushan,  and  fast  ye  for  me, 
and  neither  eat  nor  drink  three  days,  night  or  day ;  I  also 
and  my  maidens  will  fast  in  like  manner.’  Esther  in 
imposing  fasting  upon  her  maidens,  of  course,  refers  to  those 
of  Jewish  origin.^^ 

Esther’s  action  as  described  in  the  opening  verses  of  Esther  5 
the  fifth  chapter,  seems  incomprehensible.  There  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  valid  reason  why  Esther  should  have 
gone  to  the  king  without  being  summoned,  and  should  thus 
have  exposed  herself  to  the  danger  of  being  killed  on  the 
spot,  in  which  case  she  would  have  been  of  no  further  use 
to  the  Jews,  and  her  sacrifice  would  have  been  in  vain. 

Was  there  no  way  of  requesting  an  audience  of  the  king  ? 

Surely  the  king  was  not  so  unapproachable  that  no  message 
could  reach  him !  However,  after  due  consideration,  we 
cannot  but  approve  of  Esther’s  action.  Her  acting  in  that 
way  was  dictated  by  a  psychological  reason.  She  assumed, 
as  seen  above,  that  the  king  was  no  longer  in  love  with  her, 
and  that  one  of  the  other  ladies  of  the  harem  enjoyed  his 
favour.  Now  it  is  one  of  the  most  unpleasant  tasks  for 
a  man  who  has  been  in  love  with  a  woman  to  inform  her 
that  he  does  not  care  for  her  any  longer.  He  would  rather 


Among  the  maids  at  the  court  were  also  some  of  Jewish  origin  whom 
Esther  had  chosen  for  her  special  attendants,  as  she  could  rely  upon  them 
not  to  betray  her  origin.  There  is  no  reason  why  Esther  could  not  have 
chosen  among  the  girls  of  Susa  those  who  were  to  her  liking,  and  naturally 
those  of  Jewish  origin.  Paton,  however,  prefers  an  interpretation  that  is 
absolutely  improbable,  in  observing  :  ‘  Although  the  maids  given  by  Hegai 
must  have  been  heathen,  yet  Esther  values  the  help  of  their  fasting ;  and 
they  are  loyal  enough  to  her  to  be  willing  to  undertake  it  But  does  it 
stand  to  reason  that  Esther  was  forced  to  keep  those  seven  maidens  whom 
Hegai  had  given  her  five  years  before  that  event  and  before  the  king  had 
chosen  her  as  successor  to  Vashti,  and  thus  was  limited  exactly  to  the 
number  of  seven  and  was  not  permitted  as  queen  to  enlarge  her  household  ? 


200  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


go  to  any  extent  to  avoid  her  than  to  meet  her  and  tell  her 
the  truth  frankly.  In  this  respect  there  is  no  difference 
between  a  king  and  a  common  man.  Human  nature 
always  remains  the  same.  Herodotus  tells  us  that  when 
Xerxes  fell  in  love  with  his  niece  Araynta, .  he  dreaded 
Amestris  who  might  detect  his  love.^^  Artaxerxes  1 1  was 
in  this  respect  not  different  from  Xerxes.  If  Esther  had 
requested  an  audience  of  the  king,  the  latter  might,  to 
avoid  facing  her,  have  given  an  evasive  answer,  on  the  plea 
of  being  too  much  occupied  with  affairs  of  state.  Even 
if  the  king  should  grant  her  an  audience,  being  prepared 
for  her  coming,  and  having  time  for  reflection,  he  might  not 
be  greatly  impressed  with  her  appearance.  In  this  case, 
her  confession,  that  she  did  not  have  a  right  to  her  exalted 
position,  might  give  the  king  a  just  cause  and  the  best 
chance  of  getting  rid  of  her.  Therefore,  Esther  resolved 
upon  taking  the  king  by  surprise.  Coming  unawares  upon 
him,  she  hoped — perhaps  against  hope — that  her  unequalled 
beauty  would  re-awaken  his  passion  for  her.  Considering 
it  from  this  point  of  view,  we  must  admit  that  Esther  was 
a  clever  woman,  and  displayed  in  this  stratagem  more 
sagacity  and  better  knowledge  of  human  nature  than 
modern  critics  who  see  in  this  part  of  the  story  a  defect 
of  composition.^® 

However,  even  if  the  preliminary  step  turned  out 
favourably,  as  Esther  had  expected,  the  intercession  itself 
was  nevertheless  an  extremely  delicate  problem  that  had 

Herodotus  IX,  109. 

26  See  Wildeboer,  Siegfried,  Paton,  and  others  who  refer  to  Herodotus 
III,  72,  77,  84,  1 18,  T40,  who  states  that  people  might  send  in  a  message  to 
the  king  and  request  an  audience.  Paton  especially  observes  :  ‘  Either  the 
author  does  not  know  Persian  custom,  or  he  intentionally  suppresses  his 
knowledge  in  order  to  make  Esther’s  going  to  the  king  more  heroic  ’  (p.  220). 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  201 


to  be  handled  very  cautiously.  Esther  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  weak  side  of  the  king’s  character,  knowing  that  he 
was  capricious  and  easily  accessible  to  personal  influences. 
Though  in  her  company,  the  king  would  be  completely 
under  her  influence  and  willingly  grant  her  request,  out 
of  her  sight,  in  the  presence  of  the  prime  minister,  whom 
he  would  consult  on  that  matter  before  giving  a  final 
decision,  he  would  yield  to  the  minister’s  influence.  Further¬ 
more,  Haman  could  not  but  suspect  that  the  disrespect 
of  the  queen’s  relative  toward  his  person  was  not  without 
her  approval.  Consequently,  Haman  was  on  his  guard 
against  her.  But,  at  the  same  time,  he  was  careful  that 
none  of  his  actions  should  give  her  any  cause  for  intrigue, 
and  therefore,  as  seen  above,  hesitated  to  punish  Mordecai 
for  his  disrespect  toward  him,  though  legally  he  was 
justified  in  doing  so.  But  if  Haman  should  get  information 
of  Esther  taking  the  part  of  the  Jews  and  belonging  to 
the  same  creed,  his  suspicion  would  be  turned  into  a 
certainty.  In  this  case,  retreat  was  impossible  for  him. 
An  open  war  between  the  queen  and  himself,  similar  to 
that  between  Parysatis  and  Tissaphernes,^^  would  have 
been  unavoidable.  By  his  influence,  he  might  frustrate 
her  attempts  to  meddle  with  the  affairs  of  the  empire. 
Furthermore,  he  might  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the  king 
that  his  authority  was  at  stake,  if  it  should  be  known 
among  the  people  that  the  chief  wife  of  the  king  was  a 
woman  of  Jewish  origin.  Considering  the  king’s  weak 
and  vacillating  nature,  the  outcome  of  such  a  combat  was 
uncertain.  Therefore,  P'.sther  resolved  upon  disarming 
Haman’s  suspicions  by  pretending  the  highest  esteem  and 
friendship  for  his  person.  And  by  matching  her  influence 

Plutarch,  Artaxerxes  XXIII,  i,  2. 


202  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  5. 
3-5* 


against  that  of  the  prime  minister,  she  aimed  at  bringing 
about  his  downfall  in  her  presence. 

Seeing  Esther  coming  to  him  uninvited  and  thus 
exposing  herself  to  the  danger  of  being  killed  on  the  spot, 
the  king  naturally  assumed  that  it  must  be  a  matter  of 
high  importance,  demanding  immediate  attention  that 
impelled  her  so  to  act,  and  therefore  inquired  into  the 
cause  of  the  matter :  ‘  What  wilt  thou,  queen  Esther  ?  for 
whatever  thy  request,  even  to  the  half  of  the  kingdom,  it 
shall  be  given  thee  Strange  as  it  might  seem,  Esther’s 
request  was  extremely  modest.  In  reply  to  the  king’s 
extravagant  offer :  ‘  If  it  seem  good  unto  the  king,  let  the 
king  and  Haman  come  this  day  unto  the  banquet  that 
I  have  prepared  for  him  ’.  Was  the  king  not  amazed  at 
her  answer  that  she  had  exposed  her  life  for  the  purpose 
of  inviting  him  personally  to  a  banquet  ?  No !  As  we 
know  from  Herodotus  quoted  above,  it  being  the  general 
practice  of  the  Persians  to  deliberate  upon  affairs  of  weight, 
when  they  were  drunk,  Esther  in  accordance  with  the 
Persian  custom  prepared  a  drinking  bout  for  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  an  affair  of  high  importance.  Now  Haman,  of 
course,  had  among  the  eunuchs  his  friends  or  spies  who 
supplied  him  with  information  of  all  the  happenings  at  the 
court.  Esther’s  invitation  could  not  be  kept  a  secret  either. 
If  he  were  informed  of  this  affair,  Haman  might  have 
surmised  the  nature  of  the  intrigue.  In  order  to  show 
that  she  had  no  secrets  from  him,  Esther  requested  the 
king  that  the  prime  minister  should  be  present  at  the 
deliberation.  His  presence  at  the  banquet  was  quite  in 
order,  seeing  that  the  deliberation  concerned  affairs  of 
state,  and  this  part  of  her  request  was  no  surprise  to  the 
king.  It  was  probably  not  the  first  time  that  Haman  had 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  203 


been  admitted  to  the  king’s  table  to  dine  with  the  queen. 
Plutarch  states  that,  at  the  time  of  Stateira,  Artaxerxes  II 
did  that  honour  to  two  of  his  brothers.^^  Therefore  we 
may  well  assume  that  the  king  did  the  same  honour  to 
the  prime  minister  ‘  whose  seat  was  set  above  all  the 
princes 

However,  Esther  did  not  underestimate  the  prime  Esther 
minister’s  sagacity,  and  there  might  still  have  lingered 
in  his  mind  some  suspicion  that  the  queen’s  invitation  was 
merely  a  trap  to  cause  his  downfall  unexpectedly.  Though 
it  was  unlikely  that  Haman  should  still  entertain  any 
suspicion  of  her  disposition  toward  his  person,  Esther  did 
not  want  to  take  any  chance,  and  therefore  pretended  that 
her  mind  was  not  yet  fully  made  up  concerning  the  request 
to  be  deliberated  upon,  and  again  invited  both  the  king 
and  Haman  to  another  banquet  for  the  next  day.  This 
second  invitation  left  no  doubt  in  Haman’s  mind  that  he 

Plutarch,  A tiaxerxeSjV,  Even  without  reference  to  Plutarch,  it  would 
seem  highly  improbable  that  the  king  should  not  have  been  able  to  deliberate 
with  his  own  chief  councillor  in  the  presence  of  his  own  wife.  But  it  is  rather 
strange  that  none  of  the  modern  commentators,  who  presumabl}?  investigated 
all  the  historical  sources  bearing  on  this  subject  and  to  whom  Herodotus’ 
description  of  Persian  customs  could  scarcely  have  been  unknown,  can  find 
a  plausible  reason  for  Esther’s  request :  ‘  let  the  king  and  Haman  come  this 
day  unto  the  banquet  that  I  have  prepared  for  him’,  instead  of  asking  for 
the  life  of  the  Jews.  Nor  do  they  explain  the  reason  why  Haman  should 
have  been  invited  with  the  king.  They  believe  that  the  true  reason  is 
purely  literary  :  ‘  The  author  needs  time  for  the  humiliation  of  Haman  and 
the  exaltation  of  Mordecai  before  the  final  blow  falls  ’.  Did  the  statement  of 
Herodotus  with  regard  to  the  customs  of  the  Persians  that  ‘  it  is  also  their 
general  practice  to  deliberate  upon  affairs  of  weight  when  they  are  drunk* 
escape  their  mind?  If  not,  did  it  never  occur  to  them  that  Herodotus’ 
statement  applies  exactly  to  the  case  under  consideration  which  had  to  be 
deliberated  under  the  influence  of  wine,  and  that  it  was  natural  that  the 
grand  vizier  should  be  present  at  the  deliberation  which  concerned  an  affair 
of  state?  See,  however,  note  17. 


204  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  5. 

14 


was  a  great  favourite  with  the  queen,  and  he  now  became 
fully  convinced  that  she  had  not  the  least  regard  for  her 
relative.  He  might  even  have  concluded  that  the  queen’s 
very  intention  of  showing  him  this  great  honour  was  for 
the  purpose  of  impressing  upon  his  mind  that  she  had  been 
no  party  to  the  disrespectful  conduct  of  her  cousin  toward 
his  person,  and  that  she  heartily  condemned  his  behaviour. 
Thus,  any  fear  that  she  might  avenge  his  just  punishment 
was  dispelled.  Nothing  now  stood  in  the  way  of  meting 
out  the  penalty  to  the  wilful  offender  against  the  king’s 
command. 

On  coming  home,  Haman  called  for  his  friends,  his 
favourite  wife,  and  numerous  sons,  who  were  high  officials, 
and  laid  the  matter  before  them,  informing  them  how 
secure  now  his  position  was.  Though  he  had  been  exalted 
above  all  grandees,  nevertheless  he  did  not  feel  quite  at 
his  ease,  seeing  the  disrespect  shown  to  him  by  the  queen’s 
relative,  and  being  afraid  that  it  was  done  with  her  know¬ 
ledge.  To  punish  him  as  he  deserved  was  not  without 
danger.  Now,  however,  the  circumstances  were  different. 
There  was  no  need  for  him  any  longer  to  combat  the 
influence  of  the  harem.  Being  a  favourite  of  the  queen, 
he  could  use  also  her  influence  with  the  king  for  his 
purposes. 

These  reasons  seeming  plausible  enough,  the  consensus 
of  Haman’s  advisers  was,  not  to  put  up  any  longer  with 
Mordecai’s  impertinence,  and  not  to  defer  his  punishment 
for  flagrantly  flaunting  the  king’s  command,  saying :  ‘  Let 
a  gallows  be  made  of  fifty  cubits  high,  and  in  the  morning 
speak  thou  unto  the  king  that  Mordecai  may  be  hanged 
thereon’.  Critics  consider  the  statement  that  the  gallows 
prepared  for  Mordecai  was  fifty  cubits  high  an  exaggeration, 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  205 


and  it  has  been  suggested  to  read  ‘five  cubits’  (niD5< 
instead  of  ‘  fifty  cubits  This  suggestion,  however,  is 
gratuitous.  Our  author  certainly  knew  the  usual  height 
of  gallows  in  the  Orient  better  than  all  the  commentators. 
If  his  intention  had  been  to  indicate  that  the  gallows 
Haman  erected  was  of  the  usual  height,  there  would  have 
been  no  need  to  inform  us  how  high  it  was.  But  the  actual 
existence  of  exaggerations  in  our  story  is  undeniable,  and 
we  have  seen  that  they  are  not  original  but  additions 
of  a  later  period,  and  the  same  may  be  true  of  the 
statement  concerning  the  height  of  the  gallows.  However, 
while  in  our  passage  this  statement  may  be  out  of  place, 
and  was  perhaps  taken  over  from  7.  9,  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  its  truth,  that  Haman  actually  erected  a  gallows 
fifty  cubits  high  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  Mordecai  in 
a  spectacular  manner.  Mordecai’s  offence  could  not  but 
arouse  publicity,  and  therefore  his  punishment  should  fit 
the  crime.  Furthermore,  it  might  prove  a  warning  to  the 
Jews  to  part  with  their  creed  and  convince  them  of  the 
hopelessness  of  their  condition,  seeing  that  even  the  queen’s 
relative  could  not  escape  his  fate  in  his  encounter  with 
the  author  of  the  decree.  Finally,  such  a  public  execution 
would  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the  population  the  firm 
position  of  the  prime  minister,  so  that  none  would  dare 
to  interfere  with  his  decree  and  prevent  its  execution.  For 
those  reasons  Haman  erected  the  gallows  on  some  high 
structure,  so  that  everybody  could  see  it. 

Haman’s  downfall  could  have  been  effected  without  the 
incident  described  in  the  sixth  chapter,  which  shows  how 
Mordecai  was  unexpectedly  honoured.  This  incident  is 

29  Haupt  {Purim^  p.  6)  observes  that  he  would  be  inclined  to  make  this 
suggestion,  if  the  story  were  not  fictitious. 


2o6  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  6. 

1-3. 


admittedly  highly  impressive,  as  it  shows  a  singular  instance 
of  the  irony  of  fate.  The  man  for  whom  Haman  erected 
the  highest  gallows,  received  at  his  own  hands  the  highest 
honours.  But,  after  all,  this  is  merely  an  incident^  and 
not  a  necessary  link  in  the  chain  of  natural  circumstances. 
If  the  story  were  fiction  we  might  see  in  the  insertion  of 
this  incident  a  slight  defect  of  composition.  The  dramatic 
effect  and  the  contrast  would  have  been  more  impressive 
if  Haman  had  been  overthrown  at  the  height  of  his  power 
and  ambition.  Owing  to  this  incident,  however,  Haman’s 
humiliation  foreshadows  his  downfall,  and  the  reader  is 
prepared  to  see  his  final  doom.  Yet  our  author  is  by  no 
means  averse  to  dramatic  effects  to  impress  the  mind 
of  the  reader.  His  story  is  construed  according  to  the 
laws  of  cause  and  effect.  None  of  his  sentences,  as  far 
as  original,  are  superfluous  or  illogical.  However,  fact  is 
proverbially  stranger  than  fiction.  Our  author  records 
an  historical  event,  and  was  not  a  writer  of  fiction,  and 
thus  could  do  nothing  against  facts.  The  incident  of  the 
sixth  chapter  actually  did  occur,  and  also  greatly  contributed 
to  cause  Hainan’s  downfall. 

While  Haman  was  busy  at  home  preparing  the  gallows 
for  Mordecai,  and  anticipating  the  satisfaction  of  revenge 
on  his  adversary,  a  trivial  incident  occurred  at  the  court 
that  frustrated  his  intention  and  was  the  cause  of  his  own 
humiliation.  ‘  On  that  night  could  not  the  king  sleep  ; 
and  he  commanded  to  bring  the  book  of  the  records  of  the 
chronicles  ;  and  they  were  read  before  the  king.  And 

Paton,  p.  244,  remarks  :  ‘  This  is  not  a  natural  way  to  pass  a  sleepless 
night ;  with  his  numerous  wives,  the  king  might  have  found  something 
livelier’.  But  this  is  rather  a  naive  observation.  An  oriental  king  may 
sometimes  become  sick  and  tired  of  his  numerous  wives  and  not  care  for  the 
pleasures  of  the  harem. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  207 


it  was  found  written  that  Mordecai  had  told  of  Bigthana 
and  Teresh,  two  of  the  king’s  eunuchs,  of  those  that  kept 

0 

the  door,  who  had  sought  to  lay  hands  on  the  king 
Ahasuerus/  We  may  assume  that  it  was  that  part  of 
the  chronicles  wherein  his  personal  affairs  were  recorded,^^ 
and  therefore  it  was  quite  natural  that  also  the  deed  of 

V 

Mordecai  who  had  revealed  the  conspiracy  of  the  chamber¬ 
lains  against  the  life  of  the  king  was  mentioned  therein. 
Now  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  the  deed  of  Mordecai  was 
merely  mentioned  incidently  among  the  other  events.  But 
it  is  more  likely  that  a  Jewish  eunuch  played  the  part 
of  Providence  in  that  incident,^^  and  intentionally  read 
Mordecai’s  deed  before  the  king,  as  the  latter  in  his  bed¬ 
chamber  was  undoubtedly  surrounded  by  eunuchs,  and 
not  by  other  courtiers.  On  being  informed  of  Mordecai’s 
deed,  the  king  inquired :  ‘  What  honour  and  dignity  hath 

Mordecai’s  deed,  as  we  are  distinctly  told,  ‘  was  written  in  the  book 
of  the  chronicles  before  the  king  ’  (Esther  2.  23).  The  peculiar  expression 
‘before  the  king’  indicates  that  this  ‘book’  was  reserved  for  the  private 
use  of  the  king  and  thus  was  kept  in  his  apartments  and  not  in  the  archives. 
This  clause  would  thus  indicate  that  there  were  other  Persian  annals  of 
a  general  character.  We  may  well  assume  that  the  king  was  especially 
interested  in  matters  concerning  his  own  person  and  kept  a  record  of  them 
for  future  reference.  Hence  ‘  the  book  of  records  ’  formed  a  special  division 
of  ‘  the  chronicles’,  and  is  thus  identical  with  ‘the  book  of  the  chronicles 
before  the  king  ’.  If  so,  D'DTI  "IDD  is  to  be  rendered  ‘  the 

book  of  the  records  the  chronicles’.  Haupt  {^Critical  Notes,  p.  161),  how¬ 
ever,  sees  in  D’lDM  a  gloss.  But  then,  it  must  have  been  added  to  the 

text  before  its  rendering  into  Greek,  as  the  Greek  version  has  fivTj/jioavva  icuv 
ij^iipwv. 

Paton,  p.  245,  permits  himself  the  philosophical  observation  :  ‘  This  is 
the  way  that  things  happen  in  ‘story-books  not  in  real  life’.  However, 
taking  into  consideration  the  important  part  that  eunuchs  played  in  that 
period,  this  miracle  can  find  a  rational  explanation,  since  the  Jewish  eunuchs 
may  well  have  played  the  part  of  Providence  in  this  incident.  See,  how¬ 
ever,  note  17. 


2o8  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  6. 

4-6. 


/ 


been  done  to  Mordecai  for  this  ?  ’  Then  said  the  king’s 
servants  that  ministered  unto  him :  ‘  There  is  nothing  done 
for  him  The  answer  was  correct.  The  king  did  not  ask 
whether  any  reward  had  been  offered  to  him  for  this  deed, 
and  the  servants  probably  could  not  have  said  anything 
about  it.  They  knew  only  of  the  fact  that  Mordecai  was 
still  in  the  same  position  as  before  the  conspiracy.  How¬ 
ever,  we  have  seen  that  Mordecai  might  easily  have  obtained 
a  high  office  on  Esther’s  elevation,  but  had  preferred  to 
remain  in  obscurity,  lest  his  identity  should  have  become 
known,  and  for  the  same  reason  he  could  not  but  decline 
any  reward  offered  him  for  having  saved  the  king’s  life. 

The  king  was,  of  course,  deeply  hurt  to  perceive  how 
little  his  life  was  valued  in  the  eyes  of  his  ministers,  that 
the  man  who  had  saved  it  had  been  left  unrewarded.  It 
was  a  paint  of  honour  with  the  Persian  kings  to  reward 
magnificently  those  who  conferred  benefits  on  them.  The 
omission  in  this  case  could  be  due  only  to  the  negligence 
of  his  prime  minister.  The  latter  ought  to  have  known 
all  meritorious  persons  in  the  empire,  even  those  whose 
deeds  dated  back  to  a  period  before  he  had  been  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  government,  and  ought  to  have  recom¬ 
mended  them  for  their  due  rewards.  The  neglect  to  do 
so  was  some  indication  that  his  loyalty  to  his  sovereign 
was  not  so  firm  as  he  pretended  it  to  be,  and  was  evidently 
due  to  his  personal  ambition,  being  jealous  of  the  merits 
of  other  men,  and  being  afraid  lest  they  should  gain  favour 
in  the  eyes  of  the  king.  He  fully  deserved,  if  not  punish¬ 
ment,  at  least  a  lesson  in  modesty  and  self-abnegation, 
becoming  a  minister  claiming  to  care  only  for  the  welfare 
of  the  empire.  Reflections  of  this  kind  may  have  been, 
as  events  proved,  in  the  mind  of  the  king. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  209 


The  councillors  used  to  come  to  the  court  early  in  the 
morning  to  be  at  the  king’s  disposal.  Thus  it  was  in  order 
that  the  king  should  inquire :  ‘  Who  is  in  the  court  ?  ’  as 
some  or  one  of  the  councillors  were  sure  to  be  there.  But 
the  author  explains  that  the  presence  of  the  prime  minister 
at  the  king’s  levee  was  only  on  rare  occasions,  and  this 
time  it  was  due  to  the  fact  of  ‘  having  come  into  the  outer 
court  of  the  king’s  house  to  speak  unto  the  king  to  hang 
Mordecai  on  the  gallows  that  he  had  prepared  for  him  ’. 
On  being  summoned  into  the  inner  court,  the  king  asked 
him  :  ‘  What  shall  be  done  unto  the  man  whom  the  king 
delighteth  to  honour  ?  ’  The  question  was,  of  course,  a  snare, 
and  Haman  was  caught  in  it.  This  is  seen  from  the  fact 
of  his  not  being  told  the  name  of  the  person  for  whom  this 
honour  was  intended.  This  evidently  indicates  that  the 
king  did  not  trust  him  to  be  fair  toward  everybody. 
Recalling  to  his  mind  the  honour  shown  to  him  by  the 
queen  the  day  before,  Haman  firmly  believed  that  she  had 
influenced  the  king  in  his  favour  to  heap  new  honours 
upon  him,  and  therefore  said  in  his  heart :  ‘  Whom  would 
the  king  delight  to  honour  besides  myself?  ’ 

Of  special  significance  for  the  incident  under  considera¬ 
tion  is  a  story  of  Artaxerxes  II  narrated  by  Plutarch : 
‘  One  day  as  the  king  was  hunting,  Tiribazus  showed  him 
a  rent  in  his  robe ;  upon  which  the  king  said,  “  What 
shall  I  do  with  it  ?  ”  “  Put  on  another  and  give  it  to  me  ”, 

Tiribazus  answered.  “It  shall  be  done  so”,  said  the  king, 
“  I  give  it  to  thee,  but  I  charge  thee  not  to  wear  it.” 
Tiribazus,  though  not  a  bad  man,  was  vain  and  giddy,  and 
disregarding  the  restriction,  soon  put  on  the  robe,  at  the 
same  time  tricking  himself  out  with  some  golden  trinkets 

fit  only  for  queens.  The  court  expressed  great  indignation, 
II.  r 


210  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  6. 

7-II. 


because  it  was  a  thing  contrary  to  Persian  laws  and 
customs  ;  but  the  king  only  laughed  and  said  to  Tiribazus : 

“  I  allow  thee  to  wear  the  trinkets  as  a  woman  and  the 
robe  as  a  madman  We  thus  see  that  it  must  have 

been  a  rare  distinction  to  wear  apparel  the  king  had  worn. 

This  rare  distinction  of  being  arrayed  with  'the  apparel 
which  the  king  used  to  wear,  Haman  proposed  for  the  man 
whom  the  king  intended  to  honour.  On  hearing  Haman’s 
proposal,  the  king  was  now  fully  convinced  of  his  prime 
minister’s  unbounded  ambition,  as  it  was  obvious  that  the 
highest  grandee  of  the  empire  could  not  have  proposed 
an  honour  of  this  magnitude  for  any  other  man  but  himself. 
If  reflections  of  the  kind  suggested  above  crossed  his  mind 
on  the  information  that  the  man  who  saved  his  life  re¬ 
mained  unhonoured,  the  king  was  now  more  than  ever 
resolved  upon  lowering  Haman’s  pride,  and  to  his  amaze¬ 
ment,  commanded  him  to  bestow  personally  the  honours, 
he  had  proposed  for  himself,  upon  the  man  whom  he  was 
about  to  denounce  to  the  king,  and  for  whose  execution^ 
he  intended  to  request  permission.  Now  the  royal  com¬ 
mand  to  do  this  honour  personally  exceeded  the  proposal 
of  Haman,  as  the  latter  was  not  merely  ‘  one  of  the  king’s 
most  noble  princes \  but  the  highest  among  them  ‘whose 
seat  was  set  above  all  the  princes  If  he  had  not  intended 
to  humble  Haman’s  pride,  the  king  would  certainly  have 
commanded  one  of  the  other  grandees  to  bestow  these 

Plutarch,  Ariaxerxes  V,  3,  4.  Now  it  might,  indeed,  have  been  against 
Persian  customs  to  wear  the  garment  of  the  king,  and  therefore  it  was 
a  special  distinction,  since  the  king,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  restricted  by 
any  custom.  Tiribazus,  of  course,  did  not  have  any  claim  to  being  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  that  way.  Paton,  p.  248,  also  refers  to  the  story  of  Plutarch, 
and  remarks  that  from  this  it  appears  that  to  wear  the  king’s  own  robe  was 
accounted  one  of  the  greatest  favours. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  iuE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  21 1 


honours  upon  Mordecai.  Serving  as  page  and  herald  to 
any  other  man  was  certainly  not  becoming  the  grand  vizier 
of  the  empire.  But  if  the  king  doubted  his  devotion,  and 
was  chagrined  at  his  overbearing  pride,  Haman  s  proposal 
as  amended  by  the  king  was  the  best  course  of  teaching 
him  modesty  and  justice  toward  everybody. 

This  incident,  as  narrated  by  the  author  of  our  story, 
involves  no  improbability,  and  there  is  no  apparent  reason 
why  it  should  be  discredited.  However,  this  is  far  from 
being  the  current  opinion  of  critics  due  to  a  term  used 
here  that  seems  to  be  out  of  place.  Modern  biblical  com¬ 
mentators  have  a  special  predilection  for  textual  emenda¬ 
tions.  Words  or  passages  under  consideration  that  do  not 
square  with  their  interpretations  are  frequently  considered 
errors  of  copyists,  and  as  such  emended.  Their  interpre¬ 
tations  and  emendations  may  or  may  not  be  wrong,  but 
the  method  they  apply  is  certainly  sound  and  justifiable, 
even  from  a  strictly  conservative  point  of  view.  The 
biblical  text  may  have  been  inspired,  but  the  copyists  who 
handed  it  down  were  certainly  not.  The  word  of  God 
was  written  down  by  honest.  God-fearing  men,  but  they 
were  not  infallible,  and  though  they  may  have  been  careful 
and  sagacious  they  were  liable  to  commit  errors  like  any 
other  careful  writer.  The  Book  of  Esther,  however,  is 
treated  differently  from  all  other  sacred  writings.  Though 
generally  regarded  inferior  to  the  latter,  and  by  most  of 
the  modern  critics  not  looked  upon  as  sacred  narrative 
at  all,  nevertheless  if  this  book  contains  words  absolutely 
inconsistent  with  and  contradictory  to  the  story,  the- 
modern  critics  cling  tenaciously  to  them,  and  do  not  ascribe 
such  a  palpable  fact  to  errors  of  copyists,  for  the  purpose 
of  demonstrating  that  this  story  could  not  have  happened. 


212  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  5. 
13- 


Esther  6. 

13. 


Esther  6. 
JO. 


A  striking  instance  of  that  kind  may  be  seen  in  the  fifth 
and  sixth  chapters  of  our  story.  On  his  return  from  the 
queen’s  banquet,  and  assembling  his  friends  to  deliberate 
with  them  on  his  position  and  Mordecai’s  punishment, 
Haman  states  among  others:  ‘Yet  all  this  availeth  me 
nothing,  so  long  as  I  see  Mordecai  the  Jew  sitting  at 
the  king’s  gate  ’.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  Haman’s  friends 
were  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  Mordecai  was  a  Jew. 
Nevertheless,  after  Haman’s  humiliation,  and  on  recounting 
‘  to  all  his  friends  every  thing  that  had  befallen  him 
the  same  friends  told  him  :  ‘  If  Mordecai  be  of  the  seed 
of  the  Jeivs,  before  whom  thou  hast  begun  to  fall,  thou 
shalt  not  prevail  against  him,  but  shalt  surely  fall  before 
him  ’.  Here,  again,  we  see  that  Haman’s  friends  before 
this  incident  had  not  known  that  Mordecai  was  a  Jew, 
Furthermore,  on  Haman’s  proposal  of  the  honours  that 
should  be  bestowed  upon  the  man  whom  the  king  intended 
to  honour,  the  king  commanded  him :  ‘  Make  haste,  and 
take  the  apparel  and  the  horse,  as  thou  hast  said,  and  do 
even  so  to  Mordecai  the  Jeiv^  that  sitteth  at  the  king’s 
gate  ’.  Does  it  stand  to  reason  that  the  king  should  have 
honoured  a  member  of  the  people  who  had  been  accused 
of  disloyalty,  and  whose  extermination  he  had  decreed 
a  few  days  before  that  incident  ?  This  difficulty  could 
find  its  solution  only  by  means  of  the  preposterous  ex¬ 
planation  that  Ahasuerus  had  not  known  the  name  of  the 
people  whose  extermination  he  had  decreed.  There  is 


24  So  also  Wildeboer  and  others.  According  to  Haupt,  Critical  Notes, 
a  considerable  part  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  in  the  Massoretic  text,  and  often  even 
in  cases  where  the  latter  agrees  with  the  Greek  version,  consists  of  glosses, 
and  thus  there  is  no  reason  why  the  same  should  not  be  true  of  the  term 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  213 


no  need  for  entering  into  a  discussion  of  such  an  in¬ 
terpretation,  as  we  have  dealt  already  in  the  third  chapter 
of  our  investigation  with  this  impossible  view.  But  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  those  difficulties  and  improbabilities 
would  automatically  disappear,  if  we  see  in  the  term  ‘  the 
Jew\  in  both  places  under  consideration,  a  slip  of  the 
pen  on  the  part  of  the  copyists. 

The  name  of  Mordecai,  in  his  lifetime,  and  also  later, 
among  the  Jewish  people,  was  ‘Mordecai  the  Jew’  (‘'D'nD 
’’TiiTn),  perhaps,  because  Mordecai  was  an  un- Jewish  name, 
or  for  some  other  reason.  It  was  pardonable  on  the  part 
of  the  Jews  to  emphasize  their  connexion  with  the  man 
who  had  occupied  the  highest  position  in  the  empire, 
whose  exterior  and  conduct  neither  before  nor  after  the 
event  narrated  in  our  story  distinguished  him  as  a  member 
of  the  Jewish  people.  The  present  Jews  do  exactly  the 
same,  pointing  out  with  special  pride  the  Jewish  descent 
of  some  high  officials  or  renowned  scholars,  who  on  the 
point  of  religion  have  scarcely  anything  in  common  with 
Israel.  The  copyists  were  so  used  to  this  designation 
‘the  Jew’  ('"iin'n),  that  they  inserted  it  in  wrong  places. 
Ahasuerus  had  not  the  slightest  notion  of  Mordecai’s 
Jewish  descent.  It  is  not  likely  that  Mordecai’s  fellow- 
officials,  who  had  been  a  short  time  before  apprised  of  this 
fact  by  Mordecai  himself,  should  have  hastened  to  the 
king  to  inform  him  of  this  important  news.  Siegfried 
ingeniously  remarks  :  ‘  Mordecai’s  origin  was,  of  course, 
recorded  in  the  annals  But  how  could  this  fact  have 
been  recorded  in  the  annals,  seeing  that  Mordecai  himself 
had  made  a  secret  of  it  ?  ‘  Could  Ahasuerus  have  forgotten 


s-”'  Siegfried,  Wildeboer,  Paton,  &c. 


214  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  6. 
12-13. 


Morclecai’s  nationality  ?  ’  commentators  ask  mockingly.^® 
No;  he  did  not  forget  it,  and  he  never  knew  it. 

Haman’s  humiliation,  as  we  remarked  above,  fore¬ 
shadowed  his  downfall.  He  was  a  person  of  high  intellect 
and  sagacity,  and  at  once  perceived  that  the  king  intended 
to  humiliate  him.  His  prestige  was  gone.  The  population 
could  not  regard  him  any  longer  as  the  first  man  of  the 
empire.  If  the  king  had  intended  to  retain  him  in  his 
office  he  would  not  have  undermined  his  authority,  as  the 
king’s  power  rests  upon  that  of  his  representatives,  entrusted 
with  the  reins  of  government,  and  his  authority  demands 
that  his  grand  vizier  should  be  generally  respected. 
Therefore,  Haman  was  afraid  that  his  official  career  would 
soon  be  over. 

On  coming  home  humbled  and  dispirited,  ‘  mourning 
and  with  covered  head  ’,  and  recounting  to  his  friends 
everything  that  had  befallen  him,  the  latter  confirmed  his 
worst  fears.  If  what  they  told  Haman  should  be  con-' 
sidered  a  prediction,  which  is,  indeed,  the  consensus  of 
opinion  of  the  commentators,  then  this  prediction  must 
not  be  regarded  as  an  historical  fact,  but  merely  as  a 
legendary  tradition.  After  an  event  has  occurred,  people 
always  claim  that  it  was  predicted,  according  to  the 
maxim :  '‘post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoe  ’.  Especially  in  this 
case,  ‘  the  wise  men  ’  (D'DDn),  whom  we  may  identify  with 
the  Magians,  might  have  spread  this  tale  among  the  people, 
after  Mordecai  succeeded  Haman  as  prime  minister,  and 
prided  themselves  on  the  fact  of  having  predicted  Haman’s 
downfall  and  Mordecai’s  elevation.  However,  this  inter- 

This  question  had  already  been  raised  in  the  eighteenth  century  hy 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  since  then  it  is  repeated  by  all  critics,  without  perceiving 
the  fundamental  error  of  this  question. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  215 

pretation  is  far-fetched  and  unnecessary.  The  statement 
of  Haman’s  friends  was  not  a  prediction  but  a  foregone 
conclusion.  It  was  reasonable  to  expect  that  Mordecai, 
after  having  been  so  magnificently  honoured,  should 
become  one  of  the  highest  grandees  of  the  empire.  If 
Mordecai  had  not  been  a  Jew,  his.  high  rank  might  have 
caused  some  concern  to  Haman,  but  would  not  necessarily 
have  been  detrimental  to  his  position  as  prime  minister. 
Both  the  latter  and  the  new  favourite  might  have  lived 
upon  the  best  terms^  and  shared  the  king’s  favour 
together.  But  owing  to  the  fact  that  Mordecai  was  ‘  of 
the  seed  of  the  Jews  the  latter  and  the  prime  minister 
were  deadly  enemies,  and  could  not  exist  side  by  side. 
Considering  that  Mordecai  was  high  in  favour,  and  Haman’s 
position  was  badly  shaken,  the  outcome  of  their  impending 
combat  could  easily  be  foreseen. However,  after  all, 
Haman’s  high  position,  only  was  in  danger,  and  not  his 
life.  He  did  not  commit  any  crime  that  should  have  put 
his  life  in  jeopardy.  Nor  does  the  prediction  of  his  friends 
imply  the  loss  of  his  head,  as  is  generally  understood  by 
commentators. 

We  have  mentioned  above  the  letter  of  Cyrus  the 
Younger  to  the  Lacedaemonians,  quoted  by  Plutarch  in 
his  ‘  Life  of  Artaxerxes  ’,  in  which  Cyrus  boasts  that  he 
is  able  to  drink  more  wine,  and  carry  it  better  than  his 
brother  Artaxerxes.^^  This  statement  is  the  key  to  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  and  the  only 
explanation  of  Haman’s  final  downfall  and  execution.  We 

Paton  is  thus  wrong  in  observing  that  ‘  It  is  hard  to  see  why  Haman’s 
friends  should  find  anything  alarming  in  his  sustaining  a  temporary  reverse 
before  a  Jew  \ 

28  See  chapter  IV,  note  35. 


2]  6  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


learn  from  Cyrus’  letter  that  the  Persians  prided  them¬ 
selves  on  their  drinking  capacity,  and  considered  it  a  great 
virtue  to  be  able  to  consume  large  quantities  of  wine 
without  becoming  intoxicated.  One  incapable’  of  per¬ 
forming  such  a  feat  was  looked  upon  as  a  weak  character : 
for  a  person  of  strong  intellect  is  not  easily  overpowered 
by  intoxicants.  On  the  contrary,  under  their  influence, 
the  energies  are  roused,  and  the  mental  faculties  stimulated. 
For  that  reason,  the  Persians  deliberated  upon  weighty 
affairs  under  the  influence  of  wine,  as  seen  from  Herodotus’ 
statement  quoted  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  this  work. 
Tacitus  asserts  that  the  Germans  did  exactly  the  same.^^ 
This  letter  shows  further  that  Artaxerxes  did  not  possess 
this  quality,  and  was  frequently  overpowered  by  wine. 
There  is  not  the  least  reason  to  doubt  Cyrus’  statement, 
as  a  Persian,  and  especially  an  Achaemenian  prince,  would 
not  tell  a  falsehood.  Cyrus  evidently  meant  to  indicate 
that  Artaxerxes  being  a  weak  character,  a  treaty  with 
such  a  king  would  be  rather  precarious.  Being  exceedingly 
vain,  Artaxerxes  would  never  have  conceded  that  he  was 
deficient  in  what  the  Persians  considered  a  high  quality. 
We  may  rest  assured  that  at  a  convivium  he  indulged 
more  in  drink  than  his  guests,  and  unable  to  stand  it, 
became  actually  intoxicated.  In  such  a  condition  he  may 
have  committed  many  an  action  that  he  never  would  have 
done  had  he  been  in  his  right  senses.  Woe,  however,  unto 
the  man  who  would  have  had  the  temerity  the  next  day 
to  remind  the  king  that  he  was  too  strongly  affected  by 
wine,  and  for  this  reason  ought  to  reverse  his  decision. 
The  fate  of  Prexaspes,  who  declared  Cambyses  to  be 
greater  than  his  father  Cyrus  the  Great,  with  the  exception 

Tacitus,  Germauica,  22. 


/ 


» 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  21 7 


of  being  too  much  given  to  wine,  as  Herodotus  recounts, 
was  a  fair  warning  to  the  Persian  courtiers  not  to  allude 
to  a  weakness  in  the  king’§  character.  If  Artaxerxes  did 
commit  an  imprudent  action  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  he 
could  not  but  approve  of  it  the  next  day,  as  otherwise 
his  weakness  would  have  become  known. 

Dejected  at  his  recent  experience,  and  thrown  into  Esther  6. 

14, 

a  state  of  deep  consternation,  by  the  prediction  of  his 
friends,  Haman  was  still  seeking  ways  and  means  of  extri¬ 
cating  himself  from  his  difficult  position,  and  his  inclination 
was  so  far  from  feasting,  that  he  almost  forgot  the  queen’s 
invitation.  He  was  not  there  in  time.^^  This  was  a  breach 
of  court  etiquette.  Fancy  the  king  waiting  for  his  guest  ! 

This  is  what  our  author  meant  to  indicate,  saying  :  ‘  While 
they  were  yet  talking  with  him,  came  the  king’s  eunuchs, 
and  hastened  to  bring  Haman  unto  the  banquet  that  Esther 
had  prepared.’ 

The  downfall  of  Haman,  notwithstanding  the  preceding  Esther 7. 
incident,  would  scarcely  have  been  effected,  if  the  king  had 
been  drinking  moderately,  or,  if  under  the  influence  of 
quantities  of  wine  he  had  consumed,  he  would  have  been 
capable  of  reasoning  clearly  concerning  the  affairs  of  the 
empire.  The  deliverance  of  the  Jews  was  apparently  due 
to  the  defect  in  his  character  attributed  to  him  by  his 
brother  Cyrus.  He  was  actually  at  that  time  in  a  condition 

Herodotus  III,  35. 

The  expression  *  they  hastened  instead  of  jfon  ElS 

^  they  brought  Haman’,  is  not  without  reason,  and  evidently  indicates  that 
Haman  had  tarried  too  long  at  home.  Baton,  however,  ignoring  the  real 
significance  of  the  term,  asserts  that  there  is  no  suggestion  that  Haman  in 
his  grief  had  forgotten  his  appointment  with  Esther  and  the  expression 
^  hastened  ’  means  no  more  than  ‘  brought  expeditiously  This  may  perhaps 
be  true  of  the  English  term,  but  certainly  not  of  that  of  Hebrew.  Our 
interpretation  agrees  with  that  of  Wildeboer. 


2l8  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


of  not  being  able,  as  it  were,  to  tell  Hainan  from  Mordecai. 
Now  we  have  seen,  as  Herodotus  states,  that  the  Persians 
were  sometimes  sober  at  their  first  deliberations.^^  And 
we  have  further  pointed  out  that  Haman’s  accusation  of 
the  Jews  did  not  take  place  at  a  banquet,  since  the  decision 
was  apparently  reconsidered  under  the  influence  of  wine.^^ 
Being  fully  convinced  of  the  king’s  love  for  her,  Esther  had 
nothing  to  fear  for  her  own  person  and  position,  and  could 
frankly  confess  her  origin  to  the  king.  If  Haman  had 
deceived  the  king,  and  his  advice  of  destroying  the  Jews 
was  due  to  pure  malice,  for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  ven¬ 
geance  on  Mordecai — as  the  Massoretic  text  indicates,  and 
as  accepted  by  all  commentators — Esther  could  have 
caused  his  downfall  in  his  presence,  in  a  straightforward 
manner,  when  the  king  was  capable  of  dealing  with  affairs 
of  state,  and  not  at  a  drinking  feast.  His  action  being 
outrageous,  and  nothing  short  of  high  treason,  Haman 
would  have  lost  his  head  at  once.  The  king  could  never 
pardon  such  a  crime  of  having  used  his  authority  for  the 
extermination  of  a  whole  people,  and  having  him  branded 
as  a  cruel  monarch,  for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  Haman’s 
own  revenge  on  a  member  of  that  people.  However,  the 
current  interpretation  is  absolutely  wrong.  Haman  in  his 
accusation  of  the  Jews  did  neither  deceive  the  king,  nor 
was  his  decree  due  to  a  private  grudge  against  Mordecai. 
For  this  reason  Esther  was  forced  to  take  advantage  of 
a  moment  when  the  king  was  not  responsible  for  his 
actions,  and  had  no  other  choice  but  to  resort  to  the 
Persian  custom  of  deliberating  affairs  of  importance  under 
the  influence  of  drink,  as  only  under  such  circumstances 
the  downfall  of  the  prime  minister  and  the  deliverance  of 

Herodotus  I,  133. 


See  chapter  VII, 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  219 


the  Jews  might  be  effected.  That  drinking,  for  the  purpose 
of  a  deliberation,  was  the  only  reason  for  Esther’s  banquet, 
may  be  further  seen  from  the  singular  expression  :  ‘  And 
the  king  and  Haman  came  to  drink  with  Esther 

the  queen  The  identical  expression  is  used  also  in  the 
third  chapter,  in  the  passage:  ‘the  king  and  Haman  sat 
down  to  drink  \  and  we  have  seen  that  our  author  meant 
to  indicate  thereby,  that  Haman’s  decree  was  reconsidered 
under  the  influence  of  wine. 

Drinking  without  discretion  as  usual,  ‘  the  king  said  Esther 

2-6. 

again  unto  Esther  on  the  second  day  at  the  banquet  of 
wine  :  Whatever  thy  petition.,  queen  Esther,  it  shall  be 
granted  thee  ;  and  whatever  thy  request,  even  to  the  half 
of  the  kingdom,  it  shall  be  performed.  Then  Esther  the 
queen  answered  and  said  :  If  I  have  found  favour  in  thy 
sight,  O  king,  and  if  it  please  the  king,  let  my  life  be  given 
me  at  my  petition  and  my  people  at  my  request ;  for  we 
are  sold,  I  and  my  people,  to  be  destroyed  (to  be  slain. 

Though  in  the  decrees  of  both  Haman  and  Mordecai  the  superfluous 
synonyms  naxi?'!  :inn^  are  doubtlessly  later  additions,  there  is  good 

evidence  for  the  assumption  that  here  in  Esther’s  accusation  of  Haman 
these  terms  are  original.  It  is  natural  that  Esther  in  her  excitement  should 
have  strongly  emphasized  the  danger  impending  over  her  people  and  for 
this  reason  used  synonymous  expressions.  It  is  even  probable  that  the  late 
interpolators  in  inserting  into  the  decrees  of  Haman  and 

Mordecai  borrowed  these  terms  from  Esther’s  accusation.  That  these  terms 
in  the  latter  are  original  can  be  plainly  seen  from  the  fact  that  the  Greek 
translator  here  read  to  be  destroyed,  to  be  plundered, 

and  to  serve  ’,  instead  of  To  be  sure,  it  is  quite 

inconceivable  that  a  Jewish  translator  should  have  misread  Tiny!?  ‘  to  serve  ’ 
for  nnx!?  Ho  be  destroyed  ’.  But  this  rendering  may  be  taken  as  a  further 
confirmation  of  our  contention  that  the  Greek  translator  did  not  possess 
a  Hebrew  copy  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  when  he  made  his  translation  (see 
chapter  I,  note  8).  It  is  perhaps  due  to  this  error  that  the  Greek  text  is 
here  mixed  up  and  totally  corrupt  in  other  respects,  as  far  as  its  rendering 


220  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


and  to  perish).  But  if  we  had  been  sold  for  bondmen  and 
bondwomen,  I  had  held  my  peace,  for  the  calamity  would 
not  be  equal  to  the  loss  of  the  king  (i.  e.  we  would  endure 
this  calamity  rather  than  that  the  king’s  revenues  should 
suffer  a  loss)  We  notice  here  that  Esther  took  good 


from  the  Hebrew  is  concerned.  The  term  did  not  seem  to  the 

translator  to  be  properly  in  agreement  with  Esther’s  further  remark 

But  if  we  had  been  sold  for  bondmen 
and  bondwomen,  I  had  held  my  peace  ’  and  therefore  he  read 

and  we  are  sold  for  bondmen  and  bondwomen  But 
then  the  rendering  irap^Kovaa  corresponding  to  would  be  meaning¬ 

less  in  this  connexion,  unless  the  meaning  of  this  passage  would  be  :  if 
nnyb  only  and  not  inbl  IDSyilb  should  be  our  fate,  I  had  held  my  peace. 
Further  the  rendering  knpdOrjfjifv  does  certainly  not  correspond  to  Hebrew 
,  unless  the  translator  read  in  the  meaning  of  ‘  forfeited  to  the 

royal  treasury’.  Finally  the  translator  seems  to  have  read  lifn  pN  'ID 
nity  ‘for  the  adversary  is  not  fit  for  the  royal  court’,  if  not 
nijy  "1i?nn  p^?  ‘  for  the  (royal)  court  is  not  fit  for  one 

who  causes  damage  to  the  king’.  Errors  of  this  kind  would  have  been 
impossible,  if  the  translator  had  not  merely  relied  upon  his  memory,  in 
rendering  the  story  into  Greek. 

The  term  is  with  Ibn  Ezra’s  commentary  to  be  construed  as 
an  abstract  noun  ‘calamity’.  All  the  attempts  at  construing  it  as  a 
concrete  noun,  ‘  enemy  have  failed.  This  clause  must  contain  the  reason 
for  Esther’s  keeping  silence.  Cf.  the  discussion  of  the  various  inter¬ 
pretations  of  this  passage  in  Baton’s  commentary,  p.  261.  But  Paton  is 
certainly  wrong  in  his  objection  to  the  construction  of  “IV  as  ‘  calamity, 
adversity  ’,  maintaining  that  it  never  has  that  meaning  in  Esther.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  term  occurs  only  twice  in  our  story,  here  and  in  “1^ 
and  as  to  the  latter,  Paton  and  others  failed  to  see  that  it  actually  means  : 

‘  man  of  opposition,  hostility  ’,  corresponding  to  Aramaic  ^113. 

Haman  is  elsewhere  not  designated  as  D'THT'n  but  as  D'Tin'n  “TlDif. 
Ottli’s  and  Wildeboer’s  suggestion  to  read  pTI3  iTliy  pN  '3 

‘for  the  deliverance  is  not  worthy  that  the  king  should  be  endamaged’, 
is  thus  an  unnecessary  emendation,  though  linguistically  well  possible,  as 
the  term  actually  occurs  in  our  story  (Esther  4.  14).  Haupt  {Critical 

Notes,  p.  165)  maintains  that  the  term  pl3,  which  in  the  Bible  occurs  only 
here,  does  not  mean  ‘  damage  ’,  but  ‘  annoyance  ’.  But  this  term  occurs 
innumerable  times  in  the  Mishnah, Talmud,  and  Midrashim,  where  it  certainly 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  221 

care  not  to  mention  the  name  of  her  people  exposed  to 
destruction,  as  otherwise  it  would  have  spoiled  the  effect. 

The  king  did  not  have  the  slightest  notion  of  Esther’s 
Jewish  origin.  Being  intoxicated,  his  intellect  was  naturally 
obscured,  and  he  could  not  divine  that  Esther  alluded  to 
the  Jewish  people.  Hence,  surprised  that  such  an  outrage 
should  have  been  committed  without  his  knowledge,  the 
king  demanded  to  know  :  ‘  Who  is  he,  and  where  is  he, 
that  durst  presume  in  his  heart  to  do  so  ?  whereupon 
Esther  dramatically  exclaimed :  ‘  An  adversary  and  an 
enemy,  even  this  wicked  Haman  !  ’  If  Esther  had  men¬ 
tioned  in  her  petition  the  name  of  the  Jews,  the  outcome 
might  have  been  different. 

The  king  was  now  incensed  at  the  thought  that  events  Esthei  7.7. 
like  that  should  happen  in  his  empire,  of  which  he  had  not 
the  least  information.  But  he  was  too  vain  to  admit  that 
his  prime  minister  ventured  to  act  without  his  knowledge. 

Haman  being  accused  of  a  heinous  crime,  and  having  been 
designated  by  the  queen  as  an  adversary,  an  enemy,  and 
a  wicked  man,  the  king  could  not  discuss  the  matter  with 
him  amicably,  as  it  would  have  been  an  insult  to  the  queen. 

Her  accusation  may  have  added  fuel  to  his  suspicions  that 
his  prime  minister  was  not  the  devoted  servant  he  pre¬ 
tended  to  be.  But  the  esteem  for  his  high  intellect  had 
not  yet  gone,  the  services  he  had  rendered  to  the  empire 
had  to  be  considered,  and  therefore  the  king  hesitated  to 
blame  him.  On  the  other  hand,  the  slight  capacity  of 
reasoning  that  the  wine  might  still  have  left  him,  was 

has  no  other  meaning  but  ‘damage’.  Yet  there  is  no  reference  in  his 
arguments  to  this  fact.  As  to  his  evidence  from  various  Aramaic  passages 
for  his  contention  that  the  root  pTJ  means  ‘to  annoy’,  it  rests  upon  his 
own  interpretation  of  these  passages. 


222  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  7.8. 


blinded  by  his  infatuation  for  the  queen,  and  the  king 
could  not  find  any  excuse  for  his  prime  minister.  Thus 
vacillating,  he  did  not  answer,  but  ‘  arose  in  his  wrath  from 
the  banquet  of  wine  and  went  into  the  palace  garden  ’, 
evidently  for  the  purpose  of  calming  down  before  giving 
a  final  decision.^*^ 

Having  been  made  acquainted  with  Mordecai’s  creed, 
before  the  decree  was  issued,  Haman  knew  at  once  whom 
and  what  Esther  meant  by  her  accusation.  Hearing  the 
queen  accusing  him  as  a  wicked  person,  and  seeing  the 
king  in  a  condition  of  intoxication,  incapable  of  reasoning, 
Haman  naturally  became  terrified.  To  defend  himself 
against  this  accusation  was  useless.  Political  reasons  carry 
no  weight  with  one  who  is  not  in  a  proper  state  of  mind. 
His  only  hope  was  fo  gain  time.  The  king  in  a  condition 
of  sobriety  would,  of  course,  listen  to  reason.  Whether  he 
would  retain  his  position  or  be  dismissed  was  of  secondary 
consideration.  Anyway  he  could  convince  the  king  of  his 
innocence  of  the  queen’s  accusation,  as  he  could  not  have 
acted  otherwise.  The  decree  having  been  issued  with  the 
king’s  consent  after  due  investigation  and  deliberation, 
a  justification  of  his  action  was  unnecessary,  and  Haman 
could  plead  that  he  certainly  could  not  be  made  responsible 
for  the  fact  that  the  queen  was  a  member  of  a  people 
whose  creed  was  inconsistent  with  the  Persian  laws.  If 
his  life  had  been  spared  only  a  few  days,  it  is  very 
questionable  whether  the  Book  of  Esther  would  ever  have 
been  written. 

Therefore,  to  save  himself  for  the  moment :  ‘  Haman 
stood  up  to  make  request  for  his  life  to  Esther  the  queen  ; 

So  also  Bertheau-Ryssel,  Ottli,  Siegfried,  Haupt  {Critical  Notes, 
p.  168).  For  the  various  interpretations  see  Paton,  p.  262. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  223 


for  he  saw  that  there  was  evil  determined  against  him  by 
the  king.’  Haman  may  have  feared  that  the  king  was 
resolved  upon  destroying  him,  but  he  was  wrong.  The 
king’s  mind  was  far  from  being  determined  on  this  point. 
He  was  still  wavering  between  his  love  for  the^  queen  and 
his  esteem  for  the  grand  vizier.  In  his  supplication  to 
the  queen,  Haman  may  have  promised  her  to  revoke  the 
decree  against  the  Jews  in  some  way,  if  given  a  chance. 
Esther,  however,  was  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  a  delay 
of  his  final  downfall  might  be  fatal  to  her,  and  therefore 
turned  a  deaf  ear  to  his  supplication  to  stay  the  wrath  of 
the  king.^’^  In  his  despair  and  frenzy,  Haman  might  eaisily 
have  forgotten  that  it  was  a  crime  to  touch  the  wife  of  the 
king,  as  Plutarch  informs  us,'^^  and  might  have  seized  her 
hands,  imploring  her  urgently  to  comply  with  his  request. 
But  Esther  may  have  pushed  him  aside  and  thus  he  fell 

Paton  (p.  262)  is  totally  wrong  in  his  reflections  on  this  case,  saying : 

‘  It  must  be  admitted  that  her  character  would  have  been  more  attractive,  if 
she  had  shown  pity  toward  a  fallen  foe.  The  author  might  have  represented 
her  as  interceding  for  Haman,  even  if  the  king  had  not  granted  her  request, 
but  such  an  idea  is  far  from  his  mind.’  If  Esther  had  done  according  to  the 
advice  of  this  commentator,  our  author  would  have  had  no  occasion  for 
writing  the  story  of  Esther.  Haman  would  have  succeeded  in  carrying  out 
his  designs  against  the  Jews.  He  was  not  yet  a  fallen  foe,  and  Esther’s 
intercession  would  have  saved  his  life,  as  he  needed  only  a  short  respite 
to  convince  the  king  of  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  in  their  stubborn  refusal  to 
comply  with  the  royal  decree  with  regard  to  the  worship  of  Anahita,  and 
this  he  could  have  accomplished  only  when  the  king  was  in  a  sober  state  of 
mind.  Our  author  recorded  an  historical  event,  and  was  not  a  writer 
of  fiction,  and  therefore  could  not  represent  Esther  as  interceding  for  her 
enemy.  But  the  real  antecedents  of  the  danger  to  the  Jews  in  that  period 
being  unknown  to  the  commentators,  their  conception  of  all  incidents  of  our 
story  is  bound  to  be  erroneous. 

Plutarch,  Artaxerxes,  XXVII,  i.  2  :  ^  For  the  barbarians  are  so  ex¬ 
tremely  jealous  of  their  women,  that  capital  punishment  is  inflicted,  not 
only  on  the  man  who  speaks  to  or  touches  one  of  the  king’s  concubines, 
but  also  on  him  who  passes  or  approaches  their  chariots  on  the  road.’ 


224  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


upon  the  couch  on  which  she  was  reclining.^''^  On  his 
return  from  the  garden  at  the  very  moment,  the  king 
found  Haman  in  that  attitude,  and  exclaimed  :  ^  Will  he 
even  force  the  queen  before  me  in  the  house?’  However, 
did  the  king  really  imagine  that  Haman  had  intended  to 
make  an  indecent  assault  upon  the  queen  ?  To  touch  the 
king’s  wife  was  a  crime  in  itself,  and  the  king  in  a  state  of 
intoxication,  exaggerated  Haman’s  misbehaviour. 

This  was  a  terrible  accusation.  Nevertheless,  accusation 
and  even  commission  of  a  crime  does  not  mean  condemna¬ 
tion.  The  Persian  kings,  as  a  rule,  did  not  put  any  one 
to  death  for  a  single  fault,  as  Herodotus  informs  us.^®  If 
so,  the  clause  lan  pn  cannot  mean  ‘  and  they  covered 
Haman’s  face  ’,  because  he  was  condemned  to  death,  as 
generally  explained.  Nor  can  we  accept  the  interpretation 
of  this  clause,  that  Haman’s  face  was  covered  with  shame.^’ 

Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  169)  suggests  that  after  nDfOH  hv  we  have 
to  supply  n^b^-\2  prnni?  ‘  to  seize  her  feet  ’,  or  ‘to  kiss  her 

feet  But,  as  far  as  the  present  writer  can  see,  there  is  no  single  instance 
in  antiquity  that  a  male  suppliant  should  have  seized  or  kissed  the  feet 
of  a  queen,  and  an  action  of  this  kind  would  be  contrary  to  all  notions 
of  decency  and  propriety  among  ancient  Oriental  nations.  Thus,  no  matter 
whether  our  story  be  historical  or  fiction,  and  whether  its  composition 
belongs  in  the  fourth  century  or  in  the  Maccabean  period,  no  author  who 
had  any  knowledge  of  Oriental  customs  could  have  meant  anything  of  this 
kind.  Baton’s  remark,  p.  263,  that  ‘  falling  down  and  laying  hold  of  the 
feet  was  a  common  attitude  of  suppliants’,  is  true  only  in  case  the  person 
supplicated  is  a  king,  but  not  in  that  of  a  queen. 

See  chapter  VII,  note  27. 

So  Siegfried.  But  a  commentator  of  a  book  ought  to  be  better 
acquainted  with  its  contents ;  he  observes :  ‘  Formerly  Mordecai  was 

'IDn  “having  his  head  covered”,  now  Haman’s  head  was  covered’. 
He  evidently  forgot  that  'iDn,  mentioned  chapter  6.  12,  was  not  said  of 
Mordecai  but  of  Haman.  However,  the  current  translation  is  linguistically 
scarcely  possible,  as  the  subject  of  IDPI  is  missing,  and,  furthermore,  the 
proper  Hebrew  construction  would  be  |10rt  ''J2  ISH'*')  ‘'2D  NV  "imH. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  225 

Haman  was  in  mortal  terror  for  his  life,  and  the  feeling 
of  shame  is  psychologically  inconsistent  with  that  of  terror. 
A  more  probable  interpretation  might  be :  ‘  Haman’s  face 
was  covered  with  pallor  i.  e.  Haman  became  deadly  pale. 
However,  there  is  another  question  to  be  considered.  On 
hearing  an  accusation  so  terrible,  and  at  the  same  time 
so  ridiculous,  how  is  it  that  Haman  let  this  accusation  pass 
without  offering  a  defence?  Why  did  he  not  protest  his 
innocence,  declaring  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  assault 
the  queen,  but  that  he  merely  acted  as  suppliant  ?  The 
violation  of  the  Persian  court-etiquette  not  to  touch  the 
king’s  wife  was  under  such  circumstances,  if  not  pardonable, 
certainly  at  least  not  a  heinous  crime,  for  which  he  should 
undergo  the  penalty  of  death !  Why  did  he  not  make 
any  attempt  to  save  his  own  life?  Furthermore,  when  in 
addition  the  eunuch  Harbonah  accused  him  of  having 
prepared  a  gallows  for  the  man  who  had  saved  the  king’s 
life,  why  did  Haman  not  defend  himself  against  this  accusa¬ 
tion,  by  protesting  that  Mordecai’s  deed  had  been  unknown 
to  him,  when  he  had  intended  to  punish  him  as  a  criminal 
who  had  repeatedly  and  wilfully  disregarded  the  king’s 
command?  No  matter  whether  such  a  plea  was  true  or 
not,  an  investigation  of  its  truth  would  have  delayed  his 
execution.  Regarding  this  point,  we  would  be  justified 
in  objecting  that  events  of  this  kind  happen  in  story  books, 
while  in  real  life  a  man  fights  for  his  existence  to  the  last 
ditch.  If  so,  there  would  be  no  other  way  but  to  assume 
that  Haman  actually  did  defend  himself ;  the  defence, 
however,  being  of  no  avail,  the  author  omitted  any  reference 
to  it.  But  this  would  be  a  very  forced  interpretation. 
Now  there  is  an  Arabic  phrase  for  ‘  falling  in  a  swoon  ’, 

O  ^  ^  S  O  9 

or  that  literally  means  ‘  it  was  cohered 


226  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  7. 
9-10. 


0 


upon  him  i.  e.  darkness  came  upon  him.  The  question 
now  arises,  whether  the  clause  isn  pn  'OD  has  not  likewise 
the  same  meaning.  If  so,  this  clause  would  contain  the 
explanation  of  Haman’s  strange  conduct  in  not  offering 
any  defence  against  the  accusations :  (As  the  word  went 
out  of  the  king’s  mouth),  and  Haman’s  face  was  covered, 
that  is  to  say,  he  fainted. 

Upon  the  king’s  exclamation  :  ‘  Will  he  eve7i  force  the 
queen  before  me  in  the  house?  ’  (n'ln  nx*  wn), 

Harbonah,  undoubtedly  a  Jewish  eunuch,  opportunely 
observed  :  Why  this  man  is  capable  of  committing  the 
worst  crimes ;  ‘  Behold,  there  is  eve^i-  a  gallows  which 
Haman  had  made  for  Mordecai  ’  (iton  pyn  mn  D3 

q'pg  king  could  not  but  consider  the  intention 
of  executing  a  man  who  had  saved  his  life,  and  who  for 
this  deed  had  been  on  that  very  day  greatly  honoured, 
nothing  short  of  high  treason.  Haman  was  now  accused 
of  a  double  crime,  and  according  to  the  rule  of  the  Persians 
in  judicial  matters,  the  king  was  justified  in  executing  him 
at  once.  Otherwise,  without  Harbonah’s  accusation,  Haman 
might  have  been  arrested  and  brought  before  the  judges 
‘that  know  law  and  judgement’  (pTi  m  In  that 

case,  Haman  might,  indeed,  have  proved  his  innocence, 
and  perhaps  regained  his  influence  with  the  king.^^  The 


If  Haman  was  already  condemned  to  death,  as  it  is  generally  in¬ 
terpreted,  and  Harbonah  merely  advised  the  manner  of  his  execution,  the 
expression  )‘yn  njn  d:i  '  behold  also  the  gallows  ’  is  rather  strange.  But  it  is 
different  if  the  latter  passage  refers  to  the  king’s  exclamation  DN  DJil 

as  in  this  case  Harbonah  gives  a  second  and  more  important  reason 
for  Haman’s  penalty  of  death. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  statement  of  Herodotus  I,  137  :  ‘  The 
king  shall  not  put  any  one  to  death  for  a  single  fault.  .  .  .  But  in  every  case 
the  services  of  the  offender  shall  be  set  against  his  misdoings  ;  and  if 
the  latter  be  found  to  outweigh  the  former,  the  aggrieved  party  shall  then 


THE  ROOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  227 


downfall  of  Haman  was  really  effected  by  the  Jewish 
eunuch  Harbonah.^^ 

From  a  purely  Jewish  point  of  view,  the  Jews  would 
probably  have  completely  disappeared  from  the  face  of 
the  earth,  if  Haman  had  been  permitted  to  carry  out  his 
decree,  and  his  death  was  tantamount  to  their  deliverance, 
no  matter  in  what  way  it  was  contrived,  and  thus  they  are 
perfectly  justified  in  making  it  the  occasion  of  their  annual 
celebration.  But,  leaving  the  Jews  out  of  consideration, 
and  considering  his  guilt  from  a  purely  Persian  point  of 
view,  we  cannot  but  judge  that  Haman  fell  a  victim  to  the 
intemperance  of  Artaxerxes.  There  is  a  remarkable 
parallel  between  the  fates  of  Haman  and  Tissaphernes, 
both  grandees  of  Artaxerxes  H.  Tissaphernes  had  saved 
the  king’s  life  at  the  time  of  his  consecration  at  Pasargadae. 
When  Cyrus  was  gathering  a  large  army  with  the  intention 
of  seizing  the  crown  for  himself,  he  went  in  person  to  Susa 
to  inform  the  king  of  his  designs.'"'^  At  the  battle  of 
Cunaxa,  he  was  judged  the  bravest  man  among  all  the 
Persian  warriors  in  the  royal  army,  and  was  honoured  with 
princely  gifts.  The  king  bestowed  upon  him  the  hand 
of  his  own  daughter,  and  considered  him  his  most  faithful 
friend,  as  Diodorus  records.^'’®  Being  a  Persian  patriot, 
he  naturally  was  the  most  implacable  enemy  of  the  Greeks, 
as  Plutarch  expresses  himself. But  neither  his  high 

proceed  to  punishment’  (see  chapter  VII,  note  27).  The  same  would  apply 
to  the  case  of  Haman.  If  placed  before  the  judges,  they  might  have  found 
that  Haman’s  services  outweighed  his  misdoings,  and  thus  might  have 
acquitted  him. 

Harbonah  thus  full3'’  deserved  his  place  in  the  Purim-Liturgy,  in  the 
blessing  And  also  Harbonah  may  be  remembered 

for  good 

Plutarch,  Artaxerxes  VI,  6.  Diodorus  XIV,  5. 

Plutarch,  Artaxerxes  XXIII,  i.  '' 


228  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


position  nor  the  royal  favour  could  save  him  from  the 
hatred  of  Parysatis,  who  never  forgave  him  the  part  he 
had  played  against  her  favourite  son  Cyrus,  and  his  death 
afforded  to  the  Greeks  great  satisfaction,  as  Plutarch 
records.^^  He  lost  his  life  on  account  of  his  policy  against 
the  interests  of  the  Greeks.  Nevertheless,  his  successor 
Tithrastes  was  compelled  to  pursue  the  same  policy  in 
the  affairs  of  Asia  Minor,  as  Ed.  Meyer  pointed  out.^^ 
Haman,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  Persian  patriot.  Perceiving 
the  decay  of  the  Persian  empire,  he  aimed  at  infusing  it 
with  new  vigour  by  reforming  the  Persian  religion  in 
accordance  with  the  current  religious  conceptions,  and 
imposing  it  as  state  religion  on  all  subjects  of  the  Persian 
empire.  This  innovation  being  successful,  he  was  greatly 
honoured,  ‘  and  his  seat  was  set  above  all  the  princes  ’. 
But  due  to  this  reformation,  he  became  the  most  formidable 
and  implacable  enemy  of  the  Jews.  His  reform  was  a 
deathblow  to  the  Jewish  creed,  and  either  the  latter  or 
its  adherents  had  to  give  way  if  its  success  should  be 
complete.  But  his  exalted  position  was  powerless  against 
Esther’s  influence  with  the  king,  and  his  downfall  meant 
the  preservation  of  Israel.  J^^^t  the  policy  he  initiated 
did  not  disappear  with  him.  It  was  resumed  again  by 

4 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the  Sassanides,  and  became  the 
standard  policy  of  Christianity  and  Islam  down  to  our 
timesTJ  Haman’s  decree  itself  seemed  to  have  been  resur- 

M 

rected  under  Artaxerxes  HI  Ochus,  as  we  shall  further  see. 
Thus,  the  historical  judgement  concerning  the  personality 
of  Haman  would  differ  if  considered  from  a  Persian  point 
of  view,  instead  of  that  of  the  Bible.  However,  if  a  nation 
should  look  upon  historical  events  from  the  point  of  view 

Plutarch,  Artaxerxes.  Ed.  Meyer,  G.A.^V.,  p.  210. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  229 


of  other  nations  with  which  it  comes  into  collision,  and  not 
regard  its  own  welfare  above  all  other  considerations,  it 
would  have  no  right  to  existence.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  of  the  American  colonies  was  at  the  period 
of  its  promulgation  a  crime  from  a  British  point  of  view. 
The  same  holds  true  of  all  deeds,  from  immemorial  times, 
by  which  nations  gained  their  liberty. 


230  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  IX 

* 

The  infallibility  of  kings — The  forfeiture  of  Haman’s  property — The 
downfall  of  his  whole  family — The  king  being  acquainted  with  the  close 
relationship  of  Mordecaito  Esther — His  reflections  upon  Mordecai’s  modesty 
and  Haraan’s  ambition — The  attitude  of  the  people  of  Susa — The  law  con¬ 
cerning  the  worship  of  Anahita  not  being  enforced — Its  resurrection  under 
Artaxerxes  III  Ochus — Haman’s  decree  being  still  in  force — Esther’s  plea — 
The  king’s  point  of  view — The  sanguinary  style  of  Mordecai’s  decree — 
•The  interpolators — The  decree  in  the  Greek  version — Its  remarkable  addition 
- — Mordecai  in  the  pomp  of  a  prime  minister — The  joy  of  the  people  of  Susa — 
The  conversion  of  many  Gentiles — The  joy  of  the  Jews  for  being  given 
permission  to  defend  themselves — The  hope  of  their  enemies  to  execute 
Haman’s  decree  — The  fight  at  Susa — The  Jews  being  attacked  on  the  second 
day — Haman’s  special  decree  for  Susa — The  exposing  of  the  bodies  of 
Haman’s  sons — The  number  of  the  slain  Gentiles — The  festival  ^of  Purim — 
The  attitude  of  the  Sopherim  towards  it — Its  secular  character  and  Persian 
features — Mordecai’s  letter  of  Purim — The  ‘Fast  of  Esther’ — Mordecai’s 
second  letter  of  Purim — The  opposition  of  the  Sopherim — Purim  a  safeguard 
against  Persian  persecutions — The  composition  of  the  Book  of  Esther  in 
a  later  period — The  Persian  annals  —  Mordecai’s  Persian  name  —  His 
characterization  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 

Esthers. I.  KINGS  are  infallible,  and  cannot  be  expected  to  admit 
having  been  in  the  wrong.  This  is  especially  true  of 
Artaxerxes  II,  who  was  exceedingly  vain,  and  would  never 
have  conceded  that  his  reason  had  been  obscured  under 
the  influence  of  wine.  The  execution  of  Haman,  thoug-h 
ordered  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  was  nevertheless  approved 
of  as  an  act  of  justice.  The  prime  minister  having  been 
eliminated,  the  king  was  now  completely  under  the  influence 
of  Esther.  Being  deeply  in  love  with  her,  the  king  did  not 
object  to  her  origin. 

The  disgrace  of  a  governor  or  other  great  men  has 
always  involved  the  forfeiture  of  their  property  to  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  EHSTORY  231 


crown.^  Haman  having  been  condemned  as  a  traitor,  the 
king  confiscated  his  estates  and  presented  them  to  Esther, 
his  accuser,  as  a  mark  of  his  favour.  Haman’s  family  and 
his  sons,  who  apparently  were  high  officials,^  were  in  all 
probability  apprehended  at  the  same  time.  This  was  in 
accordance  with  the  Persian  custom,  as  under  the  rulers 
of  the  Achaemenian  dynasty  the  condemnation  of  a 
grandee  involved  his  whole  family.  Intaphernes,  one  of 
the  seven  conspirators  against  Pseudo-Smerdis,  when  sus¬ 
pected  of  high  treason  against  Darius,  was  arrested  and 
executed  with  all  his  relatives,  except  his  eldest  son  and 
the  brother  of  his  wife.^  Masistes,  the  brother  of  Xerxes, 
was  slain  with  all  his  sons.^  Darius,  the  son  of  Artaxerxes  II, 
was  taken  with  all  his  children  before  the  judges  to  answer 
for  his  crime,  as  Plutarch  records.^  The  same,  of  course, 

^  See  chapter  VII,  note  66. 

2  There  is  scarcely  any  room  for  doubt  that  Haman’s  sons  were  grandees 
of  the  empire  or  high  officials.  If  that  had  not  been  the  case,  their  names 
would  hardly  have  been  mentioned.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  our  author  leaves 
no  doubt  on  this  point.  The  passage  Vn  nil  lUn  FlX  pn  QilS?  1DD1 

is  surely  not  to  be  translated  :  ‘And  Haman  recounted  unto  them  the  glory 
of  his  riches,  and  the  multitude  of  his  children,^  as  it  is  generally  done,  since 
his  wife  and  friends  were  well  acquainted  with  these  facts.  But  211 
ought  to  be  translated  ‘  the  greatness  of  his  children  and  thus  Haman  told 
them  not  only  of  his  own  high  position,  but  also  of  that  of  his  children. 
The  Greek  translator,  having  been  unable  to  understand  the  meaning  of 
this  expression,  omitted  it  altogether  (cf.  chapter  I,  note  8).  For  2*1  in  the 
meaning  of  ‘greatness’,  see  Brown- Driver’s  Hebrew  Lexicon,  p.  914. 

®  Herodotus  III,  119.  His  eldest  son  was  pardoned  by  Darius,  because 
his  mother  did  not  ask  for  the  life  of  any  of  her  children,  but  for  that  of  her 
brother. 

4  Ibid.,,  IX,  1 13. 

®  Plutarch,  Artaxerxes,  XXIX,  8.  The  extermination  of  a  family  of  a 
traitor  was  more  a  matter  of  policy  than  for  the  sake  of  vengeance,  as  it  was 
a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  relations  of  such  a  man  would  not  fail  to 
avenge  themselves  if  given  an  opportunitju  The  revenge  of  Prexaspes, 
whose  son  was  murdered  by  Cambyses,  almost  overturned  the  Achaemenian 


232  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


happened  in  the  case  of  Haman,  that  his  family  had  to 
share  his  fate.  If  Haman’s  sons  had  not  been  arrested  at 
once,  they  would  not  have  been  eleven  months  later  at 
Susa  to  be  slain  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar.  Under  the 
reign  of  Darius  II  Notus,  the  father  of  Artaxerxes  II, 
the  entire  family  of  Hydarnes  was  apprehended  and 
delivered  by  that  king  to  his  queen  Parysatis,  that  she 
might  execute  her  revenge  upon  them  for  the  injury  done, 
or  intended  to  be  done,  to  her  daughter  Amestris,  by 
Teriteuchmes,  the  son  of  Hydarnes,  and  Parysatis  put 
them  all  to  death,  except  Stateira.®  Exactly  the  same  did 
Artaxerxes  in  delivering  to  Esther  the  family  of  Haman, 
the  enemy  of  the  Jews.  By  the  term  Hhe  house  of 
Haman  ’  (i?:n  ri'a)  is  thus  to  be  understood  not  only 
HamaiPs  property,  but  also  his  family. 

The  king  learnt  now  for  the  first  time  of  the  close 
relationship  between  Mordecai  and  Esther,  ‘  for  Esther  had 
told  what  he  was  unto  her  ’.  She  evidently  informed  him 
of  the  fact  that  she  was  Mordecai’s  daughter,  who  brought 
her  up  when  she  had  lost  both  parents  in  her  childhood. 
If  the  author  had  intended  to  state  that  Esther  informed 
the  king  of  her  relationship  to  Mordecai,  a  fact  that  formerly 
had  been  unknown  to  him,  he  would  have  used  one  of  the 
biblical  terms  mn  p  ‘  her  uncle’s  son  \  or  ‘  her  kin  ’, 

or  nnnp  ‘her  relation’,  not  the  peculiar  periphrase  ni?  Nin  nrj 
‘  what  he  is  to  her  ’.  The  king  may  or  may  not  have 
knowm  or  remembered  that  Esther  was  related  to  Mordecai. 
If  Esther  on  her  elevation  had  procured  for  Mordecai  a 

dynasty,  as  the  rise  of  Pseudo-Smerdis  was  due  to  him,  who  recognized  him 
as  the  legitimate  son  of  Cyrus,  for  the  purpose  of  executing  his  vengeance 
upon  Cambyses. 

®  Ctesias,  Pers.,  52-7. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  233 

high  position,  his  very  existence  would  have  recalled  to 
the  king’s  mind  Mordecai’s  relationship  to  the  queen.  To 
be  related  to  the  king  by  marriage  was  not  a  rare  distinc¬ 
tion,  as  each  of  his  three  hundred  and  sixty  wives  had 
numerous  relatives,  though  kinship  to  the  chief  wife  may 
have  been  a  greater  honour ;  but  the  chief  wife  had  not 
always  the  greatest  influence  with  the  king.  The  latter 
could  not  be  expected  to  recollect  all  the  relations  of  his 
numerous  wives.'^  Moreover  relationship  is  a  mere  acci¬ 
dent,  and  bestowal  of  patronage  on  one’s  relatives,  irrespec¬ 
tive  of  their  merit  and  legal  claim,  though  customarily 
indulged  in,  is  fundamentally  immoral.  Mordecai,  however, 
was  more  than  a  mere  relative  of  Esther,  as  the  latter  was 
indebted  to  him  for  a  spontaneous  act  of  generosity,  in 
having  acted  as  a  father  to  her,  an  orphan.  We  may  rest 
assured  that  Esther  did  not  omit  to  impress  upon  the 
king’s  mind  Mordecai’s  self-abnegation  :  How  he  might 
have  obtained  a  high  position  on  her  elevation,  yet  pre¬ 
ferred  to  remain  in  obscurity,  even  after  he  had  saved  the 
king’s  life,  and  did  not  claim  any  reward  for  having  done 
his  duty  as  a  loyal  subject.  The  king  could  not  but  be 
deeply  moved  by  such  unselfish  behaviour,  being  so 
contrary  to  that  of  his  courtiers  who  were  always  eager 

If  Mordecai  had  not  saved  the  life  of  the  king,  his  relationship  to 
Esther  would  scarcely  have  procured  him  this  high  position.  For  if  it  had 
been  customary  with  the  Persian  kings  to  bestow  high  positions  upon  the 
relatives  of  their  favourite  women,  no  other  Persian  would  have  had  a 
chance  to  become  a  high  official.  Therefore,  Wildeboer  and  other  com¬ 
mentators  are  wrong  in  declaring  ‘  Mordecai  owed  his  promotion  to  his 
relationship  to  Esther ;  for  his  service  to  the  king  had  already  been 
rewarded’.  The  honour  shown  to  Mordecai  was  certainly  not,  and  could 
not  have  been,  the  final  reward.  What  was  the  advantage  of  riding  on  the 
king’s  horse  in  royal  apparel,  if  the  recipient  of  this  honour  should  after¬ 
wards  remain  in  obscurity?  The  honour  bestowed  upon  Mordecai  was 


234  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esthers. 2. 


and  clamouring  for  honours  and  distinctions.  He  might 
have  contrasted  Haman’s  pride  with  Mordecai’s  modesty. 
Like  Alexander  the  Great  who,  in  comparing  Craterus  with 
Hephaestion,  said  that  Craterus  was  the  king  s  friend,  but 
Hephaestion  was  the  friend  of  Alexander?  Artaxerxes 
might  have  said  that  Haman  was  the  friend  of  the  king^ 
Mordecai,  however,  that  of  Artaxerxes.  Now  it  is  natural 
that  the  king  should  be  eager  to  see  a  person  of  such  a 
character,  a  rare  specimen  at  a  royal  court,  and  accordingly 
‘  Mordecai  came  before  the  king’. 

On  seeing  Mordecai,  and  being  impressed  with  his 
personality  and  qualifications  for  an  office  of  high 
responsibility,  the  king  considered  that  a  person  of  this 
character  could  be  trusted  implicitly,  and  would  be  emi¬ 
nently  fitted  for  the  office  of  the  grand  vizierate,  now 
vacant,  and  therefore :  ‘  The  king  took  ofif  his  ring,  which 
he  had  taken  from  Haman,  and  gave  it  unto  Mordecai  ’. 
The  latter  was  now  installed  in  Haman’s  place.  For  the 
purpose  of  enabling  him  to  conduct  himself  with  the  pomp 
and  splendour  of  a  grand  vizier,  ‘  Esther  set  Mordecai  over 
the  house  of  Haman  ’,  and  Mordecai  could  thus  freely 
dispose  of  its  wealth  for  his  private  use.^  Mordecai  had 


similar  to  that  bestowed  upon  Joseph  by  Pharaoh  (Gen.  41.  43),  indicating 
his  elevation  to  a  high  rank.  This  would  have  happened  without  the 
events  narrated  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  our  story.  But  in  that  case 
Mordecai  would  have  had  to  contend  against  the  influence  of  the  grand 
vizier.  Owing  to  these  events,  however,  his  competitor  for  influence  with 
the  king  was  removed. 

®  Diodorus,  XVII,  12. 

®  Esther  did  not  set  Mordecai  over  the  house  of  Haman,  because  it  was 
a  special  honour  for  him  to  become  manager  of  the  queen’s  estates,  as 
Wildeboer  explains,  since  Mordecai  had  already  attained  the  highest  honour 
of  a  Persian  subject,  and  we  should  think  that  a  grand  vizier  had  more 
important  duties  than  to  be  the  administrator  of  estates.  With  regard  to 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  235 

been  wealthy  enough  as  a  private  man,  but  not  as  a 
minister. 

To  the  population  of  Susa  it  was  no  surprise  to  see 
Mordecai  in  this  high  position.  The  man  whom  they  saw 
being  honoured  in  an  unprecedented  manner,  to  whom  the 
prime  minister  himself  had  to  serve  in  the  position  of 
a  groom  and  herald,  could  not  but  become  the  highest 
grandee.^®  If  the  Caunian,  who  at  the  battle  of  Cunaxa, 
gave  Artaxerxes  a  bottle  of  bad  water,  was  raised  by  him 
from  indigence  and  obscurity  to  honours  and  riches,  as 
Plutarch  records, should  not  the  saviour  of  his  life  expect 
the  highest  reward?  As  for  his  being  a  Jew,  this  was 
a  private  matter,  merely  a  religious  opinion,  that  could  be 
changed  at  any  time.  Furthermore,  there  was  scarcely 
any  perceptible  difference  between  a  Jew,  neglecting  the 
religious  observances,  and  a  strict  Zoroastrian,  since  abomi¬ 
nation  of  idols  was  characteristic  of  both  of  them.  However, 
the  elevation  of  Mordecai  indicated  a  change  in  the  policy 
of  the  empire.  It  meant  that  Artaxerxes  intended  to 
return  to  the  policy  of  the  old  Achaemenian  kings  of  not 
interfering  with  the  creed  of  their  subjects.  The  introduc¬ 
tion  of  anthropomorphic  images  into  the  Zoroastrian 
religion,  being  in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  the 
people  and  a  Persian  law,  was  not,  and  could  not  have 
been,  rescinded,  but  none  was  forced  to  worship  them. 
After  the  ill-fought  battle  at  Leuctra  a  large  number-  of 
warriors  belonging  to  powerful  families  fled  from  the 

this  point,  Paton,  p.  268,  correctly  observes  that  the  administration  of  the 
estate  and  disposal  of  its  revenues  gave  Mordecai  wealth  suitable  to  his  new 
dignity. 

’0  See  note  7. 

Cf.  chapter  VI. 


Plutarch,  Artaxerxes^  XIV,  2. 


,236  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

battle-field.  For  this  cowardice  they  ought  to  have  been 
declared  infamous,  according  to  the  Lacedaemonian  laws, 
but  to  put  so  rigid  a  law  as  this  in  execution,  at  a  time 
when  the  offenders  were  so  numerous,  and  when  the 
commonwealth  had  so  much  need  for  warriors,  was  both 
impolitic  and  dangerous.  The  Lacedaemonians  in  this 
perplexity  had  recourse  to  Agesilaus,  who  advised  them : 

‘  Let  the  laws  sleep  that  day !  ’  The  same  was  the  case 
here.  There  was  a  law  on  the  statute  books  of  the 
Persians,  but  its  observance  was  not  enforced.  Strict 
Zoroastrians  might  indeed  have  been  well  pleased  with 
Mordecai's  elevation.  However,  that  law  was  not  enforced 
as  long  as  the  Persian  throne  was  occupied  by  a  king  who 
was  favourably  disposed  towards  the  Jews.  The  banish¬ 
ment  of  many  Jews  to  Hyrcania  under  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  III  Ochus,^^  who  succeeded  his  father  Arta- 
xerxes  II,  may  indeed  have  been  due  to  a  resurrection  of 
that  law,  as  there  is  no  plausible  reason  for  the  persecution 
of  the  Jews  by  this  king.^^  The  population  of  Susa  may 
have  been  neither  surprised  nor  overjoyed  at  Mordecai’s 
elevation.  The  term  ‘fear’  ("ins)  occurring  three  times  in 
our  story  in  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  population, 
may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  population  submitted  to 

Cf.  Ed.  Meyer,  G.  A.,  Ill,  p.  212. 

Graetz  {History  of  the  Jezvs,  I,  p.  408)  is  undoubtedly  right  in 
observing  :  ‘  If  this  account  rnay  be  considered  historical,  the  banishment 
of  the  Judaeans  must  surely  have  been  a  mode  of  persecution  inflicted 
upon  them  on  account  of  their  fidelity  to  their  laws  and  their  God  ;  for  it  is 
hardly  to  be  supposed  that  they  took  part  in  the  revolt  against  Persia, 
which  was  then  spreading  from  Egypt  to  Phoenicia.’  This  banishment  of 
the  Jews  occurred  after  Persia’s  unsuccessful  war  against  Egypt  (361-360), 
which  incited  Phoenicia  to  revolt  against  Egypt.  About  a  year  later,  359, 
Artaxerxes  II  died.  Thus,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  banishment  of  the 
Jews  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  III. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  237 


Mordecai’s  authority  with  a  bad  grace,  out  of  fear.  How¬ 
ever,  even  this  is  questionable,  since  this  term  may  have 
a  religious  significance,  as  we  shall  see  further. 

However,  though  Haman  had  been  executed,  and  his  Esther  8. 
high  position  was  occupied  by  Mordecai,  the  danger  im-  ^ 
pending  over  the  Jews  by  the  former’s  decree  was  not  yet 
averted.  It  has  been  emphasized  that  the  most  dangerous 
point  of  this  decree  consisted  in  the  provision  that  permitted 
the  people  to  keep  for  themselves  the  property  of  the  slain 
Jews.^^  The  greed  of  the  lower  classes  of  the  population 
could  not  be  checked.  Notwithstanding  Mordecai’s  high 
position,  undeterred  by  his  power,  the  mob  would  certainly 
have  executed  Haman’s  decree  to  the  letter,  since  none 
could  be  punished  for  complying  with  the  king’s  command. 

For  this  reason,  Esther  now  besought  the  king  to  reverse 
Haman’s  decree  against  the  Jews.  There  were  good  reasons 
for  justifying  her  request.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that 
the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  stubborn  resistance  to  the 
worship  of  Anahita,  could  rightly  defend  themselves  against 
any  accusation  of  disloyalty  to  the  Persian  empire.  They 
were  the  only  people  in  this  empire  who  had  always,  from 

See  chapter  VII.  Concerning  Esther’s  request,  Paton,  p.  269, 
observes  :  ‘  From  verse  4  it  appears  that  Esther  once  more  risked  her  life 
in  going  to  the  king  unsummoned.  It  is  hard  to  see  why  this  was  necessary, 
now  that  Mordecai  was  grand  vizier,  and  could  bring  all  matters  before 
the  king.  The  author  wishes  to  magnify  Esther’s  patriotism  by  representing 
her  as  willing  to  risk  her  life  for  her  nation.’  This  reflection  would  be 
somewhat  plausible,  if  our  author  had  expressed  himself:  ‘And  Esther 
came  before  the  king ;  and  the  king  held  out  to  Esther  the  golden  sceptre  ; 
so  Esther  drew  near,  and  touched  the  top  of  the  sceptre’.  Since, 
however,  our  passage  distinctly  states  that  the  king  held  out  to  Esther 
the  golden  sceptre  after  she  had  addressed  him,  falling  down  before  him 
and  beseeching  him  with  tears  to  put  away  the  mischief  of  Haman,  Paton’s 
remark  has  not  the  least  shadow  of  justification.  Esther  surely  was  not  in 
danger  of  her  life  while  lying  at  the  king’s  feet  and  conversing  with  him. 


238  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  8. 
7-8. 


the  time  of  their  first  coming  in  contact  with  the  Persians, 
recognized  and  looked  upon  Ahuramazda  as  being  identical 
with  their  own  God.  If  the  recognition  of‘  the  Persian 
religion  was  a  test  of  loyalty  and  a  vital  necessity  for 
changing  the  heterogeneous  subjects  of  the  empire  into 
loyal  Persians,  the  Jews  could  justly  claim  to  have  become 
Persians  more  than  a  century  before  the  reform  of  the 
Zoroastrian  religion.  This  defence  was  incontrovertible, 
and  was  no  doubt  the  main  plea  of  the  Jews  during  the 
persecutions.  And  we  may  rest  assured  that  Esther  did 
not  fail  to  impress  the  king  with  this  fact,  and  therefore 
could  brand  Haman’s  decree  as  ‘  an  evil  design  against  the 
Jews.’  However,  the  worship  of  Anahita  having  been 
imposed  on  all  subjects  of  the  Persian  empire,  it  is  question¬ 
able  whether  this  law  could  have  been  executed  if  the 
Jews  had  been  granted  the  special  privilege  of  being 
exempt  from  it,  as  was  pointed  out  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  this  study. 

Though  impressed  with  Esther’s  plea  and  recognizing 
the  injustice  of  Haman’s  decree,  the  king  did  not  see  any 
need  for  frustrating  it.  It  is  true  that  Haman’s  execution 
alone  would  have  been  no  indication  of  a  change  in  the 
policy  of  the  government.  Esther’s  origin  was  now  well 
■known,  and  seeing  that  Haman’s  house  had  been  given  to 
her,  the  people  would  know  that  Haman’s  downfall  was 
due  to  his  decree,  and  none  would  dare  carry  it  out.^® 
This  is  what  the  king  meant  in  saying :  ‘  Behold,  I  have 
given  Esther  the  house  of  Haman,  and  him  they  have 
hanged  upon  the  gallows,  because  he  laid  his  hands  upon 

No  commentator  suggests  a  reasonable  explanation  for  the  king’s  reply 
to  Esther  that  he  had  given  her  the  house  of  Haman,  seeing  that  this  fact 
does  not  seem  to  have  any  bearing  upon  the  execution  of  Haman’s  decree. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  239 


the  Jews’.  Now  the  latter  statement  is  not  exact,  as 
Esther  in  her  accusation  of  Haman  did  not  mention  the 
name  of  the  people  the  latter  intended  to  destroy.  But 
the  king  evidently  meant  that  the  people  would  put  this 
construction  on  Haman’s  execution However,  the  king 
himself  may  have  pretended  this  reason  for  justifying  his 
hasty  judgement.  But  kings,  as  a  rule,  are  frequently 
deceived  regarding  the  real  sentiments  of  their  subjects 
and  their  loyalty  towards  them.  Artax'erxes  likewise 
believed  that  the  Persian  people  would  be  guided  by  his 
own  attitude  in  this  matter,  and  his  change  of  policy.  It 
may  be  assumed  that  Esther  reminded  the  king  that  there 
might  be  people  in  his  empire  so  little  imbued  with  love 
and  reverence  for  their  sovereign,  that  they  would  follow 
their  own  inclinations,  and  would  execute  the  decree,  it 
they  could  do  so  with  impunity.  Thereupon,  the  king 
rejoined  that,  if  Mordecai  and  Esther  had  some  apprehen¬ 
sion  for  the  safety  of  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  his  own 
favourable  attitude  towards  them,  they  themselves  might 
devise  a  plan  by  which  Haman’s  decree  might  be  frus¬ 
trated,  but  not  reversed,  ‘for  the  writing  which  is  written 

Haupt  {CrUical  Notes,  p.  172)  considers  the  clause  'IT'  hv 

‘  because  he  laid  his  hand  upon  the  Jews  a  gloss  :  ‘for  the  king 
did  not  give  the  order  :  hang  him  thereon  {vhv  liTl^ri),  because  he  had 
planned  to  exterminate  the  Jews,  since  this  plan  had  been  sanctioned  by 
the  king’.  His  observation  is  correct,  and  in  full  agreement  with  our  own 
conception  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the  king  did  not  know  that  Esther 
in  her  accusation  of  Haman  referred  to  the  Jews.  Nevertheless,  we  do  not 
think  that  the  passage  under  consideration  is  a  gloss,  since  it  is  found  also 
in  the  Greek  version.  See,  however,  chapter  VHI,  note  34. 

The  personal  pronoun  in  connexion  with  an  imperative  occurs  very 
seldom  (e.  g.  Gen.  42.  16),  and  is  used  for  some  special  emphasis,  and 
also  here  DflNI  is  to  be  interpreted  ‘  as  for  yourselves  ’,  that  is  to  say,  if  you 
have  any  reason  to  fear  for  the  safety  of  the  Jews.  Otherwise,  we  would 
expect  DriNI. 


240  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  8. 
9-12. 


in  the  king’s  name,  and  sealed  with  the  king’s  ring,  may 
no  man  reverse’. 

Mordecai’s  decree,  as  represented  in  our  text,  is  quite 
improbable.  Its  execution  would  have  been  a  matter  of 
impossibility.  Though  numerically  representing  an  in¬ 
significant  part  of  the  population  of  the  empire,  the  Jews 
could  have  defended  themselves  successfully  against  the 
attacks  of  their  enemies  with  the  assistance  of  their  friendly 
neighbours,  and  the  support  of  the  officials.  But  they 
could  not  have  enlisted  the  sympathy  of  the  latter  in  their 
cause  by  committing  atrocities  in  killing  women,  and 
especially  little  children,  who  did  not  and  could  not  attack 
them.^®  Even  barbarians,  as  a  rule,  spared  women  and 
children.  If  the  Jews  had  acted  in  such  a  cruel  way,  they 
would  have  been  isolated  in  their  defence,  and  thus  cer¬ 
tainly  would  have  perished.  We  may  credit  Mordecai . 
with  so  much  good  sense  that  he  never  decreed  anything 
of  that  sort.  The  mere  idea  of  contemplating  cruelties 
of  that  kind  would  have  exasperated  all  classes  of  the 
populations  against  the  Jews,  who  were  badly  in  need  of 
their  good  will.  Hence  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that 
the  hands  of  interpolators  were  busy  in  making  Mordecai’s 
decree  as  formidable  as  possible,  as  already  pointed  out 
in  the  first  chapter.  Having  exaggerated  Haman’s  decree 
beyond  all  bounds,  the  interpolators  did  the  same  with  that 
of  Mordecai. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  there  is  good  reason  for  the 

Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  177)  is  wrong  in  justifying  the  inclusion  of 
children  in  Mordecai’s  decree  on  the  ground  that  a  heathen  boy  might  attack 
a  Jewish  boy,  since  the  term  ?]L3  includes  also  little  babies  of  any  age.  But 
it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  that  in  the  European  countries  where  Jew-baiting 
prevails  the  Jews  suffer  more  from  schoolboys  than  from  the  grown  up 
people. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  241 


exaggeration  of  Haman’s  decree,  its  purpose  being  to 
induce  the  Jews  of  the  Maccabean  period  to  fight  against 
their  mortal  enemies  by  arousing  their  fear  and  hatred. 
Less  obvious  would  seem  the  reason  for  exaggerating 
Mordecai’s  decree.  May  we  attribute  the  latter  to  the 
intention  of  presenting  a  counterpart  to  the  decree  of 
Haman  on  the  part  of  the  interpolators  ?  Certainly  not ! 
The  interpolators  were  persons  of  discretion,  knowing  well 
that  the  condition  of  the  Jews  was  different  from  that  of 
the  Gentiles.  Shall  we  ascribe  it  to  a  morbid  state  of  mind 
which  finds  special  delight  in  depicting  carnage?  The 
Jews  never  were  of  so  sanguinary  a  state  of  mind  as  to 
enjoy  descriptions  of  that  sort,  and  the  interpolators 
certainly  were  not !  However,  the  exaggerations  of  both 
Haman’s  and  Mordecai’s  decrees  were  due  to  the  same 
motives.  From  the  Books  of  the  Maccabees  we  know  that 
the  Jewish  people  at  that  period  were  timid  and  indifferent, 
fighting  only  when  it  was  absolutely  necessary,  but  be¬ 
coming  careless  as  soon  as  the  enemy  retreated  for  a  short 
time,  and  consequently  many  of  them  perished.^®  The 
Greeks  and  Syrians  committed  atrocities,  as  if  they  had 
intended  to  carry  out  Haman’s  decree.^^  If  the  Jews  had 
acted  in  the  same  way,^^  they  would  have  burnt  their  own 

20  See  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  8.  9,  &c. 

21  They  had  indeed  murdered  women  and  children,  see  ibid,^  2.  39.  For 
the  benefit  of  the  commentators  who  express  high  indignation  at  the  decree 
of  Mordecai,  according  to  the  Massoretic  text,  we  may  point  to  the  historical 
records  during  the  last  sixteen  hundred  years,  which  show  that  in  the 
innumerable  attacks  upon  Jewish  communities,  the  pious  murderers,  ad 
gloriam  Dei  magnam,  never  spared  little  children,  but  annihilated  all  alike. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  present  as  of  the  past. 

22  According  to  the  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  5.  51,  the  Jews  in  their 
reprisals  killed  only  males  However,  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  term 
includes  male  children.  If  they  had  done  so  for  the  sake  of  reprisal,  they 

H.  R 


242  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

ships,  as  it  were,  and  would  have  been  compelled  to  fight 
or  perish.  The  aim  of  the  interpolators  in  their  ex- 
aggeration  of  these  decrees  was  to  arouse  the  Jews  from 
their  stupor,  and  urge  them  on  to  act  as  their  ancestors 
did  hundreds  of  years  before. 

The  second  performance  of  the  Drama  of  Esther  took 
place  at  the  period  of  the  Maccabees.  From  that  time 
onward  it  became  the  favourite  play  of  pagans,  Christians, 
and  Moslems  alike.  But  the  performance  was  never  com¬ 
plete.  There  were  actors  more  than  enough  for  the  parts 
of  Haman  and  Ahasuerus,  but  none  for  those  of  Mordecai 
and  Esther.  The  survival  of  the  Jews  in  all  these  periods 
is  therefore  more  remarkable  and  a  greater  miracle  than 
the  event  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Esther.  Mordecai  was 
thus  perfectly  right  in  predicting,  that  without  Esther’s 
intervention,  ‘  relief  and  deliverance  will  arise  to  the  Jews 
from  another  place’.  ^The  interpolators,  seeing  the  Jews 
of  their  period  playing  passive  part  of  the  performance, 
endeavoured  to  arouse  them  to  a  role  of  activity. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  the  Greek  version  of  our  story 
is  largely  a  paraphrastic  translation.  Its  translator  was 
unquestionably  a  learned  and  pious  Jew,  but  we  have 
reason  to  doubt  his  sagacity.  The  religious  elements  he 
inserted  into  our  story,  evidently  by  way  of  interpolation, 
shows  his  erroneous  conception  of  the  characters  of  Mordecai 
and  Esther.  Furthermore,  the  Greek  translator  ought  to 
have  accepted  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  our  author 
must  have  had  sufficient  reasons  for  omitting  the  name 
of  God  in  his  story,  and  ought  not  to  have  inserted  it  in 
his  translation.  On  the  other  hand,  our  author,  who  could 

surely  would  not  have  spared  adult  females.  But  if  they  did  spare  the 
latter,  would  they  not  have  spared  little  babies? 


/ 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  243 


recount  such  a  wonderful  story  without  supernatural 
elements— a  feat  unparalleled  in  the  historical  literature 
of  antiquity—  must  have  been  an  exceedingly  clever  man. 
If  we  nevertheless  find  that  the  Greek  version^  in  some 
points,  is  more  natural  and  more  reasonable  than  the 
Hebrew  text,  this  difference  is  not  due  to  the  better  sense 
of  the  Greek  translator,  but  we  may  rest  assured  that  in 
this  case  his  version  is  a  faithful  translation  of  the  original. 
Such  is  the  case  of  Mordecais  decree.  In  the  Greek 
version  this  passage  reads  as  follows :  coy  kirerd^ev  avTols 
XP^crOaL  Tofy  i^o/xols  avrcou  ku  Tracrp  rfj  ttoXel  ^orjOrjcraL  re 
avT0i9  Koi  \prjo-6aL  T019  olvtlSlkols  avTcou  Kal  dvTLKeLfxkvoL^ 
avTcov  coy  (BovKovraL.  Comparing  both  the  present  Hebrew 
and  Greek  versions,  and,  of  course,  making  allowance  for 
the  licence  of  the  translator,  the  original  Hebrew  text  in 
all  probability  was  as  follows : 

i.  e.  ‘Wherein  the  king  granted  the  Jews  which 
were  in  every  city,  to  gather  themselves  together,  and 
to  stand  for  their  life,  and  to  do  unto  their  enemies,  that 
would  assault  them,  what  they  would  This  is  exactly 

23  Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  177)  is  likewise  of  the  opinion  that  Mordecai’s 
decree  as  represented  in  the  Massoretic  text  is  not  original,  and  sees  in 
the  terms  Tin^  ‘  their  little  ones  and  women,  and  to  take 

the  spoil  of  them  for  a  prey  ’,  a  gloss  derived  from  the  decree  of  Haman 
(Esther  3.  13).  He  is  right  in  seeing  in  it  a  gloss,  but  wrong  in  explaining  it 
as  a  derivation.  The  interpolations  in  the  decrees  both  of  Haman  and 
Mordecai  come  from  one  and  the  same  source.  But  while  P]L3  may 

readily  be  admitted  as  a  gloss,  it  is  different  with  the  second  part 
Tui?.  If  this  should  be  a  gloss,  there  would  be  no  need  for  our  narrative  to 
state  D'T  DN  )rh^  nh  nD31  ‘  but  on  the  spoil  they  laid  not  their  hands’, 
since  a  permission  to  that  effect  had  not  been  given  to  the  Jews.  Yet  this 
clause  is  repeated  three  times  (9.  10,  15,  16).  Shall  we  consider  these 
repetitions  likewise  as  glosses?  But  Haupt  did  not,  and  also  on  this  point 
he  is  right.  We  shall  further  see,  that  the  original  Hebrew  text,  instead  of 

R  2 


244  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


what  we  would  have  expected  to  find  in  Mordecai’s  decree. 

More  would  have  been  evil.  The  clause  DJIVID . 

‘to  do  .  .  .  what  they  would  is  a  further  confirmation 
that  the  Greek  version  on  this  point  is  a  faithful  rendering 
of  the  original  Hebrew  text.  The  present  Massoretic  text 
does  not  contain  a  corresponding  phrase  in  Mordecai’s 
decree.  But  in  the  execution  of  the  latter,  we  actually 
find  stated  ‘  and  they  did  what  they 

would  unto  them  that  hated  them  This  apparently 
indicates  that  the  clause  ‘  to  do  what 

they  would  unto  their  enemies  was  found  in  the  original 
Hebrew  version  of  Mordecai’s  decree. 

Of  peculiar  interest  in  the  Greek  version  of  Mordecai’s 
decree  is  the  addition :  xprja-daL  to?$  vopoLS  avroh  ‘  to 
make  use  of  their  own  laws  corresponding  to  a  Hebrew 
ph  rase  ‘  to  do  according  to  their  own  laws 

or  a  similar  phrase.  If  this  clause  is  not  a  later  inter¬ 
polation,  does  it  indicate  that  the  translator  was  well 
aware  of  the  cause  of  the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews 
in  that  period  ?  Such  an  assumption  is  not  outside  the 
bounds  of  consideration,  as  the  original  Greek  version  is 
very  probably  older  than  the  present  Massoretic  text,  and 
may  well  date  from  the  third  century  B.C.E.,  as  has  already 
been  pointed  out.^'^  Besides,  the  work  of  Hecataeus  of 
Abdera,  in  which  it  was  recorded  that  the  Persians  erected 
temples  and  altars  in  Palestine,  and  attempted  to  turn  the 
Jews  away  from  their  religion,  may  well  have  been  known 

contained  the  phrase 

‘  to  do  what  they  would  unto  those  that  hated  them  and  this  actually 
entitled  the  Jews  to  the  property  of  those  who  would  attack  them,  and  they 
nevertheless  ignored  this  permission. 

See  chapter  I,  note  9. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  245 


to  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  and  the  translator  might  have 
perceived  a  connexion  between  this  Jewish  persecution  by 
the  Persians  and  the  story  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Esther. 
However,  this  addition  in  the  Greek  version  is  illogical, 
and  scarcely  complimentary  to  the  intellect  of  the  trans¬ 
lator.  Our  author  would  never  have  been  guilty  of  such 
a  defect  of  composition.  For  if  Haman’s  decree  had 
forbidden  the  observance  of  th*e  Jewish  laws,  Mordecai’s 
decree  could  not  have  permitted  them,  as  a  Persian  law 
could  not  be  reversed.  But  the  first  decree  merely  stated 
that  the  Jews^  that  is  to  say,  those  who  would  still  be 
Jews  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar,  should  be  exterminated. 
Seeing  that  this  decree  was  frustrated  by  that  of  Mordecai, 
which  permitted  the  Jews  to  defend  themselves  against 
the  attacks  of  their  enemies,  the  Jews  were  in  no  need  of 
being  permitted  the  observance  of  their  laws.  Nor  could 
that  clause  refer  to  the  exemption  from  the  worship  of 
Anahita,  that  this  worship  should  not  be  incumbent  on  the 
Jews,  because  it  was  inconsistent  with  their  laws,  as  the 
worship  of  Anahita  having  become  a  Persian  law,  it  could 
not  be  revoked,  though  for  the  time  being  it  was  not 
enforced. 

As  long  as  the  fate  of  the  Jews  was  still  in  the  balance, 
Mordecai  was  not  yet  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  appear 
publicly  with  the  pomp  and  splendour  of  a  grand  vizier. 
Though  the  people  knew  that  he  was  in  great  favour  with 
the  king,  there  was  no  outward  manifestation  of  his  high 
position.  Seeing,  however,  that  he  called  the  king’s  scribes 
and  sent  out  decrees,  this  left  no  doubt  that  he  was  installed 
in  Haman’s  place.  The  author,  therefore,  after  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  decree,  states :  ‘  And  Mordecai  went  forth  from 
the  presence  of  the  king  in  royal  apparel  of  blue  and  white, 


Esther  8. 
15-16. 


246  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  8. 
17- 


and  with  a  great  crown  of  gold^  and  with  a  robe  of  fine 
linen  and  purple  Witnessing  the  high  position  of  Mordecai, 
and  considering  that  looking  gloomy  would  be  of  no  use, 
a  great  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  Susa  considered  it  good 
policy  to  be  on  friendly  terms  with  the  powerful  minister, 
and  pretended  to  rejoice  at  his  good  fortune.  This  may 
be  the  meaning  of  the  statement,  ‘  the  city  of  Shushan 
shouted  and  was  glad’.  Seeing  that  the  Jews  had  been 
for  many  years  persecuted  and  branded  as  a  turbulent, 
disloyal  element,  we  may  rest  assured  that  a  large  number 
of  the  population  was  not  favourably  disposed  toward  them 
and  looked  upon  them  with  a  certain  degree  of  contempt 
or  hatred.  Whether  they  approved  of  Haman’s  decree  or 
not,  their  sentiments  toward  a  member  of  a  people  recently 
condemned  to  destruction,  who  had  been  elevated  to  the 
highest  office  of  the  empire,  could  scarcely  have  been 
sincere.  Outwardly,  however,  the  people  rejoiced  and 
applauded  the  new  minister.^^  But  there  may  have  been 
not  a  few  whose  sentiments  toward  the  Jews  were  different, 
and  their  joy  at  Mordecai’s  elevation  was  indeed  sincere, 
as  we  shall  see  later. 

The  sudden  change  in  the  conditions  of  the  Jews  could 
not  but  make  a  deep  impression  on  the  mind  of  many 
Gentiles.  For  a  considerable  period  the  latter  witnessed 
the  persecutions  the  Jews  underwent  on  account  of  their 

The  mocking  remarks  of  Siegfried  and  others  about  the  statement  of 
our  narrative  that  people  of  Susa  ‘  shrieked  with  delight  ’  at  the  elevation 
of  Mordecai  are  naive.  Moreover,  the  commentators  who  deem  it  so  pre¬ 
posterous  that  heathens  should  have  rejoiced  at  the  high  position  of  Mordecai, 
which  actually  meant  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  annihilation,  ought 
to  ridicule  also  the  Psalmist  who  exhorts  ‘  all  the  nations  to  give  praise 
unto  the  Lord  for  His  merciful  kindness  toward  Israel’  (Psalms  117.  i,  2). 
At  that  period,  there  might  have  still  existed  unsophisticated  people  willing 
to  acknowledge  the  working  of  Providence. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  247 


adherence  to  their  creed,  seeing  them  obstinately  refusing 
to  bow  down  to  idols  and  heroically  suffering  for  their 
own  convictions.  Many  a  Gentile,  though  not  ill-disposed 
toward  them,  may  have  ridiculed  their  superstition  in 
trusting  implicitly  in  the  God  of  Israel.  Others  may  have 
pitied  them  for  their  foolhardiness.  A  good  many  of  them 
may  have  been  horrified  at  their  impiety,  and  regarded 
the  fate  impending  over  them  as  well-deserved,  and  felt 
assured  that  the  gods  whose  worship  they  flaunted  and 
whose  existence  they  denied  would  not  suffer  them  to 
escape  with  impunity.  Seeing  the  unexpected  deliverance 
of  this  people,  when  their  final  doom  seemed  to  be  inevitable, 
many  Gentiles  may  well  have  become  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  the  Jewish  belief,  and  may  have  exclaimed  like 
Jethro:  ‘Now  I  know  that  the  Lord  is  greater  than  all 
the  gods.’  Scepticism  was  scarcely  known  at  that  period, 
among  the  Persians  at  least,  and  the  people  evidently 
ascribed  the  escape  of  the  Jews  to  the  power  of  their  deity. 
Therefore,  many  of  them  may  well  have  thought  that  the 
only  way  of  escaping  divine’ punishment  for  having  scoffed 
at  the  belief  in  such  a  mighty  God  was  to  recognize  his 
godhead  and  to  worship  him.  If  our  author  had  not  been 
extremely  careful  in  avoiding  the  name  of  God  in  this 
story,  he  would  have  written  'D  D''‘liTnD  D'nn'i 

D!T'i?y  'n  nriD  ‘  And  many  of  the  peoples  of  the  land  became 
Jews  ;  for  the  fear  of  the  Lord  was  fallen  upon  them.’  But 
considering  that  nriQ  is  an  ambiguous  expression,  as  it 
occurs  once  in  the  Bible  as  synonym  of  ‘  God  ’  as 

‘the  object  of  fear’  (Gen.  31.  53),  the  author  may  have 
intentionally  used  this  expression  which  is  capable  of  being 
understood  in  both  meanings.  Now  we  have  seen  that 
even  in  the  most  abject  state  of  the  Jews  in  Babylonian 


248  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

captivity,  many  Gentiles  became  converts  to  the  Jewish 
religion,  a  fact  which  even  the  most  sceptical  critics  who 
regard  the  statement  of  our  author  on  the  point  under 
discussion  as  incredible,  do  not  and  cannot  deny. 

However,  it  would  be  unfair  to  censure  the  modern 
commentators  for  doubting  or  flatly  denying  the  author’s- 
statement  that  ‘  many  of  the  peoples  of  the  land  became 
Jews’.  Their  view  is  due  to  the  fundamental  error  of  the 
current  interpretation,  that  the  danger  to  the  Jews  recorded 
in  our  story  was  the  effect  of  a  mad  freak  of  Haman  who 
for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  vengeance  on  a  single  individual 
intended  to  destroy  his  whole  race.  If  their  danger  was 
not  solely  due  to  their  creed,  there  was  no  reason  for  the 
Gentiles  to  ascribe  the  escape  of  the  Jews  to  the  power 
of  their  God.  No  god  worthy  of  that  name,  be  it  Marduk, 
Shamash,  Nergal,  Ahuramazda,  or  any  other  deity  in 
a  pagan  pantheon,  could  have  permitted  the  completion 
of  so  execrable  a  design.  Thus,  there  was  not  the  least 
occasion  for  any  Gentile  to  part  with  his  own  ancestral 
belief  on  account  of  the  event.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Gentiles  might  have  become  even  more  firmly  convinced 
of  the  belief  in  their  own  gods  who  prevented  their  people 
from  committing  so  horrible  a  deed.  Hence,  it  would, 
indeed,  require  childlike  simplicity  to  accept  the  author’s 
statement  that  many  Gentiles  due  to  the  miraculous  escape 
of  the  Jews  accepted  their  religion.  Furthermore,  Haman’s 
decree  having  been  in  force  only  for  a  short  time,  and  thus 
the  whole  excitement  caused  by  the  latter  having  been 
a  tempest  in  a  teapot,  as  pointed  out  in  the  first  chapter, 
the  frustration  of  the  decree  could  scarcely  have  made  any 
impression  on  the  mind  of  the  Gentiles. 

Different,  however,  is  the  conception  of  our  story,  if  we 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  249 


consider  that  the  Book  of  Esther  records  the  last  phase 
of  a  series  of  religious  persecutions,  extending  over  a  period 
of  many  years.  It  was  a  struggle  not  between  human 
forces  but  between  Polytheism  and  Monotheism.  The 
people  that  witnessed  this  struggle  were  scarcely  indifferent 
to  its  outcome.  The  natural  desire  of  man  being  to  place 
himself  under  the  protection  of  the  most  powerful  deity, 
the  most  sincere  votaries  of  the  gods  may  have  been  shaken 
in  their  belief  and  fully  acknowledged  the  power  of  the 
God  of  Israel.  Now  we  may,  of  course,  question  whether 
the  Gentiles  who  did  so  were  willing  and  ready  to  change 
their  whole  mode  of  life  and  accept  the  religion  of  Israel 
with  all  its  observances.  We  may  even  doubt  whether 
those  who,  carried  away  by  this  impression,  accepted 
Judaism  did  not  revert  to  the  old  beliefs  of  their  ancestors 
after  a  certain  time.  But  on  this  point  we  know  nothing. 
Some  of  the  converts  may  have  reverted  to  their  former 
beliefs  and  some  may  not.  However,  we  must  bear  in 
mind  that  the  structure  of  Judaism  with  all  its  observances 
had  not  been  fully  established  among  the  Jews  of  that 
period,  and  thus  the  observance  of  all  biblical  laws  was  not 
yet  characteristic  of  the  Jewish  creed.  Only  Monotheism, 
the  Covenant  of  Abraham,  and  the  observance  of  Sabbath, 
were  the  points  of  division  that  separated  the  belief  of  the 
average  Jew  from  that  of  the  Gentile.  Now  to  the  average 
Jew,  Jahveh  and  Ahuramazda  were  identical  in  all  respects 
but  in  name.  Thus  Monotheism  was  not  specifically 
characteristic  of  the  Jewish  religion,  as  Zoroastrianism  was 
apparently  based  on  the  same  doctrine.  Nor  was  circum¬ 
cision  exclusively  characteristic  of  the  Jewish  religion,  as 
it  was  generally  practiced  by  the  Phoenicians,  Arabians, 
and  probably  also  by  other  Semites.  Concerning  the 


I 


250  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

observance  of  the  Sabbath,  we  have  no  records  to  ascertain 
the  conduct  of  the  average  Jew  of  that  period  regarding 
this  precept.  But  we  know  that  in  the  period  of  Nehemiah, 
about  forty  years  before  the  event  of  Purim,  the  Sabbath 
was  not  generally  observed  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  as 
Nehemiah  himself  testified  :  ‘  In  those  days  saw  I  in  Judah 
some  treading  winepresses  on  the  Sabbath,  and  bringing 
in  heaps  of  corn,  and  lading  asses  therewith ;  as  also  wine, 
grapes,  and  figs,  and  all  manner  of  burdens,  which  they 
brought  into  Jerusalem  on  the  sabbath  day.  .  .  .  Then 
I  contended  with  the  nobles  of  Judah,  and  said  unto  them : 
What  evil  thing  is  this  that  ye  do,  and  profane  the  sabbath 
day?  Did  not  your  fathers  thus,  and  did  not  our  God 
bring  all  this  evil  upon  us,^  and  upon  this  city?  Yet  ye 
bring  more  wrath  upon  Israel  by  profaning  the  sabbath  ’ 
(Neh.  13.  15-23).  If  this  was  true  of  the  Jews  of  Judah, 
we  have  no  reason  for  the  assumption  that  the  average 
Jews  of  the  diaspora,  especially  those  in  the  interior  pro¬ 
vinces  of  the  Persian  empire,  were  less  lax  in  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  it  is  likely  that  the  same  conditions 
still  prevailed  in  the  period  of  Mordecai.  Thus  the  Gentiles 
who  embraced  Judaism  were  not  greatly  burdened  with 
religious  observances,  and  did  not  have  to  change  their 
whole  mode  of  life  on  account  of  this  step^  as  their  religious 
conduct  as  Jews  may  have  been  neither  better  nor  worse 
than  that  of  the  average  Jew.  Furthermore,  some  of  the 
Zoroastrians,  seeing  the  deterioration  of  the  Persian  religion, 
may  have  resolved  upon  accepting  a  belief  in  which  the 
Zoroastrian  doctrine  was  preserved  in  purity.  Considering 
all  these  points,  the  author’s  statement  under  discussion 
is  not  only  very  probable,  but  also  historically  almost 
beyond  any  reasonable  doubt. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  251 

Cassel,  however,  cannot  bring  himself  to  believe  that 
many  Gentiles  had  broken  the  ties  to  their  nationality 
to  enter  Judaism.^*^  This  objection  is,  of  course,  based  upon 
the  almost  generally  accepted  conception  that  a  Gentile 
had  to  sever  his  connexions  with  his  own  nationality,  if 
he  embraced  Judaism — this  conception  is  the  fundamental 
basis  of  anti-Semitism.  The  biblical  scholars  holding  this 
view  are  forced  to  maintain  that  the  post-exilic  religion 
of  the  Jews  had  still  preserved  its  character  as  a  national 
religion,  and  Prophetic  Universalism  did  not  enter  into  the 
scheme  of  Judaism,  and  did  not  modify  its  original 
character.  But  this  opinion  is  fundamentally  and  his¬ 
torically  untenable,  and  there  is  no  need  to  enter  into  a 
discussion  of  this  subject,  as  it  was  thoroughly  treated 
in  the  fifth  chapter. 

However,  though  Cassehs  doubt  concerning  the  author’s 
statement  is  fundamentally  wrong,  his  emendation  □'’ITi 
Q'TiTn  nna  ^23  '>2  D'nn'riD  pxn  i.  e.  ‘  And  many 

of  the  peoples  of  the  land  united  themselves  (with  the 
Jews);  for  the  fear  of  the  Jews  was  fallen  upon  them’, 
is  ingenuous,  but  linguistically  scarcely  correct,  as  then  we 
would  have  to  read  DHDy  n'’‘in'nt:,  they  united  themselves 
with  them  ’.  Otherwise,  the  passage  would  be  ambiguous, 
and  could  just  as  well  be  translated,  ‘and  many  of  the 
peoples  of  the  land  united  themselves  against  them  ’,  and 
if  that  had  been  the  case,  the  Feast  of  Purim  would 
scarcely  have  been  instituted.  Josephus,  indeed,  records  such 
a  union  of  Gentiles  against  the  Jews  that  was  disastrous 
to  the  latter.  At  Seleucia  the  Syrians  were  always  at 
odds  with  the  Greeks,  and  the  Jews  held  the  balance;  but 
one  day,  the  Greeks  united  themselves  with  the  Syrians, 

Cassel,  p.  22  r. 


252  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


and  together  they  slew  about  fifty  thousand  Jews.^^ 
Whether  this  tale  be  true  or  not,  a  worse  fate  would  have 
overtaken  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus,  if  the 
Gentiles  had  united  themselves  against  them. 

Jampel,  however,  while  admitting  the  improbability 
that  at  this  period  Gentiles  should  have  embraced  the 
Jewish  religion,  declares  that  the  current  translation  of 
the  passage  under  discussion  is  erroneous,  and  that  it 
ought  to  be  translated :  ‘  And  many  of  the  peoples  of  the 
land  pretended  to  be  Jews’.^^  But  though  linguistically 
such  a  translation  would  be  permissible,  as  the  Hithpdel- 
form  may  mean  ‘  to  pretend  to  be  something  or  someone  \ 
such  a  statement  would  be  historically  more  incredible 
than  that  of  the  current  translation.  We  must  consider 
that  no  pagan  can  pretend  to  be  a  Jew  without  denouncing 
idolatry,  and  no  sincere  idolater  was  likely  to  denounce 
his  ancestral  gods  to  curry  favour  with  the  Jews.  The 
religious  feeling  of  the  pagans  was  no  less  strong  than 
that  of  the  Jews  and  Christians.  We  know  that  the  sincere 
pagans  abhorred  the  religions  of  the  Jews  and  Christians, 
regarding  them  as  nothing  short  of  atheism.  Thus  the 

Josephus,  Antiquities^  XVIII,  9,  9. 

Jampel,  Das  Buck  Esther.  He  thinks  that  pagans  pretended  to  be 
Jews  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  the  massacres,  just  as  Jews  in  the  Russian 
pogroms  placed  a  cross  in  their  windows  as  a  sign  that  those  dwellings  were 
inhabited  by  Christians.  But  he  is  wrong  from  every  point  of  view.  The 
Jews  of  that  period  were  granted  permission  only  to  defend  themselves, 
and  the  pagans  who  kept  quiet  were  absolutely  safe  from  any  attack. 
Furthermore,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  :  ‘  Hath  a 
nation  ever  changed  the  gods  ?  and  yet  they  are  no  gods,  but  ,my  people 
have  changed  their  glory  for  that  which  does  not  profit’  (Jer.  2.  ii),  the 
pagans  were  incomparably  more  faithful  to  their  own  gods  than  Israel  to 
Jahveh.  Thus,  it  would  never  do  to  say  that  out  of  fear  the  pagans  pre¬ 
tended  to  be  Jews,  an  action  that  implies  faithlessness  toward  their 
ancestral  gods. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  253 


author’s  statement  would  not  gain  in  probability  through 
that  translation. 

The  fact  that  in  this  period  Gentiles  became  converts 
to  the  Jewish  religion  is  apparently  again  referred  to  in 
chapter  9.  '^7 :  bv)  DjjnT  i’yi  nn^bv  D'ninNi  i^api  idv 

i.  e.  ‘  The  Jews  ordained,  and  took  upon  them,  and 
upon  their  seed,  and  upon  all  such  as  joined  themselves 
unto  them’.  Now  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  ex¬ 
pression  b2  ‘  all  such  as  joined  themselves  unto 

them  ’,  strongly  resembles  the  almost  identical  expression 
of  the  exilic  Isaiah  'n  bv  "i33n  ‘  the  sons  of  the 

stranger  that  joined  themselves  unto  the  Lord  Our 
author  may  actually  have  had  the  latter  passage  in  mind 
when  he  used  a  similar  expression,  and  might  have  used 
the  identical  phrase,  if  he  had  not  been  over-anxious  to 
avoid  the  name  of  God  in  his  story.  But  there  must  have 
been  some  reason  why  our  author  should  have  especially 
referred  to  converts  in  this  passage.  Now  the  question 
arises:  To  what  converts  does  this  passage  refer?  There 
was  no  need  for  including  converts  who  had  accepted 
Judaism  long  ago  among  those  upon  whom  the  observance 
of  Purim  was  obligatory,  as  they  were  Jews  in  every 
respect,  and  likewise  in  danger  of  being  exterminated. 
Was  it  necessary  to  include  converts  of  later  times?  Cer¬ 
tainly  not,  since  Gentiles  on  entering  Judaism  accept 
indiscriminately  all  Jewish  customs  and  observances.  Thus 
it  seems  that  our  author  in  this  passage  actually  referred 
to  those  who  had  recently  accepted  Judaism  after  the 
downfall  of  Haman  and  the  escape  of  the  Jews.  The 
latter  not  having  been  in  danger  of  being  exterminated 
had  no  proper  obligation  for  the  observance  of  Purim. 

Isaiah  56,  6. 


254  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


« 


Esther  9. 
1-5- 


But  since  the  latter  was  made  by  common  consent  a  Jewish 
festival,  it  became  obligatory  on  all  adherents  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  In  including  the  latter,  our  author  may  have 
meant  to  imply  that  the  newly-converted  Gentiles  derived 
from  the  event  the  benefit,  that  they  became  votaries  of 
the  God  of  Israel,  thus  gaining  a  spiritual  redemption,  and 
that  therefore  they  had  a  real  cause  for  celebrating  Purim 
as  a  Memorial  Day. 

Though  Mordecai’s  decree  did  not  avert  the  danger 
to  the  Jews  altogether,  since  Haman’s  decree  could  not 
be  reversed,  and  they  were  only  given  permission  to  defend 
themselves,  the  author  nevertheless  states  :  ‘  And  in  every 
province,  and  in  every  city,  whithersoever  the  king’s  com¬ 
mandment  and  his  decree  came,  the  Jews  had  gladness  and 
joy,  a  feast  and  a  good  day’.  But  this  statement  does 
not  indicate  that  the  Jews  had  no  longer  any  cause  for 
apprehension.  They  rejoiced  at  having  been  given  a 
chance  of  fighting  for  their  existence,  and  not  because  the 
danger  was  completely  past.  At  the  time  of  the  Maccabees, 
the  Jews  did  exactly  the  same,  feasting  and  celebrating 
after  the  defeat  of  the  Syrian  army,  though  well  knowing 
that  the  enemy  was  repulsed  only  for  the  time  being,  and 
that  they  would  have  to  fight  many  battles  for  their 
existence.  The  condition  of  the  Jews  at  that  period  was 
less  hopeful  than  that  of  the  Jews  at  the  period  of  Esther.^® 

That  the  danger  to  the  Jews  was  not  completely 
averted  is  indicated  in  the  opening  lines  of  the  ninth 
chapter  of  our  story,  which  reads  as  follows:  ‘  Now  in  the 
twelfth  month,  which  is  the  month  Adar,  on  the  thirteenth 
day  of  the  same,  when  the  king’s  command  and  his  decree 
drew  near  to  be  put  in  execution,  in  the  day  that  the 
See  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  4.  36-60. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  255 

enemies  of  the  Jews  hoped  to  have  rule  over  them ; 
whereas  it  was  turned  to  the  contrary,  that  the  Jews  had 
rule  over  them  that  hated  them  Now  considering  that 
Haman’s  decree  was  absolute^  enjoining  on  all  the  people 
to  destroy  the  Jews,  while  Mordecai’s  decree  was  merely 
conditio7tal,  permitting  the  Jews  to  defend  themselves 
against  those  who  should  attack  them,  it  is  not  likely 
that  the  clause,  ‘  when  the  king’s  command  and  his  decree 
drew  near  to  be  put  in  execution  refers  to  the  decree 
of  Mordecai,  as  the  latter  would  never  have  been  put  in 
execution  if  the  Jews  had  been  left  unmolested.  Thus, 
this  clause  evidently  refers  to  the  first  decree  which  was 
still  in  force,  as  it  could  not  be  reversed,  and  therefore, 
notwithstanding  Mordecai’s  decree,  ‘  the  enemies  of  the 
Jews  still  hoped  to  have  rule  over  them  But  on  the 
day  of  decision  their  hopes  were  not  realized,  and  '  it  was 
turned  to  the  contrary,  that  the  Jews  had  rule  over  them 
that  hated  them 

Now  in  villages  and  small  places,  the  Jews  living  there 
were  absolutely  defenceless.  These  scattered  individuals, 
if  they  had  tarried  there  on  the  fateful  day,  would  have 
been  exposed  to  certain  destruction.  Therefore,  ‘The  Jews 
gathered  themselves  together  in  their  cities  throughout 
all  the  provinces  of  the  king  Ahasuerus  Their  aim  was 
not  to  avenge  themselves  on  those  who  formerly  had 


Seeing  that  Haman’s  decree  was  in  force  only  for  a  short  time,  it 
does  not  seem  probable  that  the  clause,  ‘the  enemies  of  the  Jews  hoped 
to  have  rule  over  them’,  should  refer  to  the  brief  period  that  elapsed 
between  the  decrees  of  Haman  and  Mordecai.  It  is  more  probable  that 
this  clause  meant  to  indicate :  notwithstanding  Mordecai’s  decree,  the 
enemies  of  the  Jews  still  hoped  to  have  rule  over  them.  This  hope  was 
well  founded,  as  without  interference  they  surely  would  have  prevailed 
over  the  Jews. 


256  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


hostile  intentions  toward  them,  as  such  an  unprovoked 
attack  would  not  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  decree, 
and  the  royal  officials  would  have  prevented  it  if  they  had 
overstepped  their  authority.  Their  only  purpose  was  ‘  to 
lay  hands  on  those  who  were  still  seeking  their  hurt' 
(Dnyn  but  not  on  those  who  had  abandoned  their 

intentions  of  attacking  them.^^  The  mob  eager  for  plunder, 
and  considering  that  the  Jews  were  disliked  on  account 
of  their  hostile  attitude  toward  the  polytheistic  religions, 
reckoned  upon  the  assistance  of  the  average  citizens,  ex¬ 
pecting  them,  in  case  of  being  overthrown,  to  make  common 
cause  with  them.  But  they  were  disappointed  in  their 
expectations.  The  people  at  large  did  not  come  to  their 
assistance,  and  remained  neutral.^^  The  Jews  succeeded 
in  overwhelming  their  adversaries,  ‘and  no  man  could 
withstand  them  ;  for  the  fear  of  them  was  fallen  upon  all 
the  peoples’.  But  it  is  evident  that  it  would  not  have 
been  physical  fear  that  prompted  the  average  citizens  to 

32  Not  without  intention  our  author  used  the  term  ‘seeking 

their  hurt’,  and  not  a  verbal  clause  DFlV”!  IK'^p^  ‘who  sought  their  hurt’, 
to  indicate  that  the  Jew  had  attacked  only  those  who  even  now  were  intent 
upon  doing  them  bodily  harm.  How  could  it  have  been  otherwise,  since  in 
Mordecai’s  decree  they  were  given  permission  only  ‘  to  stand  for  their 
life  ’,  and  in  the  execution  of  this  decree,  we  are  distinctly  informed  :  ‘  They 
gathered  themselves  together  and  stood  for  their  lives?’  Thus  there  is  not 
the  least  justification  for  the  interpretation  of  Wildeboer  and  other  com¬ 
mentators,  that  the  Jews  killed  all  who  were  reputed  to  be  their  enemies. 
Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  pp.  176,  180)  is  one  of  the  few  commentators  who 
protest  against  such  a  distortion  of  the  truth. 

33  Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  180)  regards  hv  D*inS  '*3 

‘for  the  fear  of  them  was  fallen  upon  all  the  peoples’,  as  an  illogical  scribal 
expansion.  But  he  is  wrong.  Our  narrative  meant  to  indicate  :  None 
of  the  enemies  who  attacked  them  could  prevail  over  them ;  and  this  was 
not  because  the  Jews  were  more  powerful  or  more  numerous,  but  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  people  at  large  did  not  participate  in  the  attacks  upon  them 
out  of  fear. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  257 

their  neutral  attitude.  It  is  more  likely  that  they  attributed 
the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  to  the  power  of  their  God  and 
thus  thought  it  more  advisable  to  leave  them  unmolested. 
If  so,  we  may  suggest  that  also  in  this  description,  but  for 
the  intention  of  avoiding  the  name  of  God  in  this  narrative, 
our  author  would  have  expressed  himself  Dn'jan 

bv  'n  ins  'd  ‘  and  no  man  could  withstand 
them  ;  for  the  fear  of  the  Lord  has  fallen  upon  all  the 
peoples 

However,  the  mob  which  are  ready  to  fall  upon  the 
Jews,  though  greed  was  the  ulterior  object  of  their  attacks, 
acted  within  their  rights  and  their  duty,  in  executing  a 
royal  decree  which  was  still  in  force,  and  were  incomparably 
more  numerous  than  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  the  neutral 
attitude  of  the  average  citizens.  The  Jews  alone,  with 
their  own  resources,  might  never  have  succeeded  in  defeating 
their  adversaries  ahd  repelling  their  attacks.  Their  victory 
was  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  ‘  all  the  princes  of  the 
provinces,  and  the  satraps,  and  the  governors,  and  they 
that  did  the  king’s  business,  helped  the  Jews  ’.  Our  author 
may  have  used  intentionally  the  somewhat  ambiguous  term 
properly  ‘  exalting,  lifting  up  ’,  but  also  though 
rarely  ‘  supporting  ’,  instead  of  the  current  term  D’'nny 
‘  helping  Bearing  in  mind  that  the  mob  in  their  attacks 
did  not  act  lawlessly,  the  royal  officials  could  neither 
prevent  them,  nor  array  their  military  forces  on  the  side 
of  the  Jews  against  their  adversaries,  but  could  indirectly 
place  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  attacking  mobs, 
while  assisting  the  Jews  in  procuring  arms  for  their  own 
defence,  and  in  many  other  ways.  However,  this  assistance 
on  the  part  of  the  officials  was  scarcely  due  to  a  change 
of  heart,  .seeing  that  the  same  officials  had  been  for  years 
II.  S 


258  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  9. 
6-15. 


the  very  instruments  of  Haman  in  his  persecution  of  the 
Jews,  and  thus  it  is  unlikely  that  they  suddenly  became 
favourably  inclined  ’toward  them.  The  Jews  certainly 
detested  many  of  these  officials  as  the  murderers  of  their 
brethren,  and  this  feeling  was  probably  reciprocal.  Now 
legally  no  blame  could  have  been  attached  to  the  officials 
if  they  had  remained  neutral  in  the  encounter  between  the 
Jews  and  their  adversaries,  or  even  if  they  had  actually 
assisted  in  the  execution  of  Haman’s  decree.  But,  as 
officials  they  depended  upon  the  goodwill  of  the  grand 
vizier,  and  it  was  scarcely  likely  that  Mordecai  would  have 
retained  them  in  their  office  if  they  had  assisted  in  the 
destruction  of  his  people.  Thus  their  favourable  attitude 
toward  the  Jews  was  due  to  their  fear  of  the  grand  vizier  : 

‘  because  the  fear  of  Mordecai  was  fallen  upon  them 

Of  special  importance  in  the  description  of  the  defence 
of  the  Jews  against  their  adversaries  are  the  events  at  the 
capital  Susa.  As  far  as  the  execution  of  Haman’s  sons 
is  concerned,  their  death,  if  not  pardoned  by  the  king,  was 
inevitable,  as  in  Persia  the  condemnation  of  a  grandee 
involved  his  whole  family,  and  they  might  have  been 
executed  at  any  time,  but  it  was  appropriate  that  their 
execution  should  occur  on  the  day  that  Haman  decreed 
for  the  extermination  of  the  Jews.  Nor  is  it  strange  that 
the  Jews  should  have  been  entrusted  with  the  execution 
of  the  sons  of  their  formidable  adversary.  Of  the  other 
enemies  who  attacked  them,  the  Jews  killed  five  hundred 
men,  and  we  may  rest  assured  that  those  who  attacked 
them  were  more  numerous  and  may  have  numbered  many 
thousands.  Esther,  however,  was  not  satisfied  with  this 
victory  of  the  Jews,  and  requested  the  king :  If  it  please 
the  king,  let  it  be  granted  to  the  Jews  that  are  in  Shushan 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  259 


to  do  to-morrow  also  according  unto  this  day’s  decree,  and 
let  Haman’s  ten  sons  be  hanged  upon  the  gallows.  And 
the  king  commanded  it  so  to  be  done ;  and  a  decree  was 
given  out  at  Shushan  ;  and  they  hanged  Haman’s  ten  sons. 
And  the  Jews  that  were  in  Shushan  gathered  themselves 
together  on  the  fourteenth  day  also  of  the  month  Adar, 
and  slew  three  hundred  men  in  Shushan’.  Now  Esther’s 
reputation  as  a  bloodthirsty  woman,  and  the  aversion  to 
the  Book  of  Esther  among  many  biblical  scholars  and 
critics  is  largely,  if  not  exclusively,  due  to  this  request  of 
Esther.  The  same  is  true  of  the  critics  who  do  not  believe 
in  the  historical  character  of  this  narrative,  as  they  see 
in  the  description  of  such  a  request  the  revengeful  character 
of  our  author.  As  to  the  latter  critics,  none  of  them  can 
find  a  reasonable  explanation  for  such  a  request.^^  Yet 
the  reason  underlying  this  matter  is  obvious.  Seeing  that 
the  Jews  were  merely  granted  the  right  of  defending 
themselves  against  the  people  that  would  assault  them,^^ 
how  could  they  have  done  so  on  the  fourteenth  of  Adar 
if  they  had  not  been  attacked  ?  Did  Esther  request  a 
special  permission  for  the  Jews  to  attack  their  enemies, 
even  if  the  latter  should  leave  them  unmolested  ?  She 

The  consensus  of  opinion  of  the  commentators  on  this  point  is 
expressed  by  Paton,  p.  287  :  ^  For  this  horrible  request  no  justification  can 
be  found.  A  second  massacre  was  in  no  sense  an  act  of  self-defence,  since 
the  power  of  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  had  already  been  broken  by  the 
events  of  the  thirteenth  of  Adar.  This  shows  a  malignant  spirit  of  revenge 
more  akin  to  the  teaching  of  the  Talmud  than  to  the  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament.’ 

Keil,  p.  609,  in  arguing  against  Bleek,  maintains  that  Esther  was 
afraid  lest  the  Jews  might  be  attacked  on  the  following  day  as  well,  and 
that  they  were  indeed  attacked.  His  interpretation  and  justification  of 
Esther’s  request  is  ignored  by  the  modern  commentators.  Paton  (see 
preceding  note)  ought  at  least  to  have  stated  that  there  are  conservative 
exegetes  who  attempt  to  justify  Esther’s  request. 

s  a 


26o  the  book  of  esteier  in  the  light  of  history 


certainly  did  not,  as  her  distinct  request  was  :  ‘  to  do 
to-morrow  also  according  unto  this  day’s  decree  ’ 

DTn  m^).  This  conclusively  proves  that  the  Jews  must 
have  anticipated  an  attack  of  their  adversaries  on  the 
following  day.  But  the  force  of  Haman’s  decree  expiring 
with  the  thirteenth  of  Adar,  what  grounds  of  apprehension 
did  the  Jews  have  for  such  a  supposition,  as  an  attack  on 
the  next  day  would  have  been  illegal  and  could  easily  be 
prevented  by  the  royal  forces?  This  leaves  no  room  for 
doubt  that  Haman’s  decree  for  Susa  was  different  from 
that  for  the  provinces,  a  fact  already  pointed  out  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  and  deduced  from  Mordecai’s  account 
of  that  decree  to  Hathach,  the  messenger  of  Esther.  Susa 
having  been  the  centre  of  the  empire,  the  assumption  is 
within  reason  that  the  Jewish  population  there  was  nume¬ 
rous,  just  as  it  was  in  later  periods  in  Alexandria,  Antiochia, 
Rome,  &c.  The  task  of  destroying  a  numerous  population 
was  not  easy.  The  Jews,  no  doubt,  would  have  offered 
desperate  resistance  to  their  adversaries.  One  day  was 
insufficient  for  accomplishing  their  destruction.  For.  this 
reason  the  people  of  Susa  were  given  two  days  to  rid  the  city 
of  the  Jews.  But  after  Haman’s  downfall,  Mordecai  saw 
no  reason  for  giving  the  Jews  of  Susa  two  days  for  their 
defence,  believing  that  the  people  of  the  capital,  in  the 
proximity  of  the  king,  would  not  dare  to  attack  the  Jews. 
This  was  an  error  of  judgement.  In  no  other  localities 
was  the  temptation  to  plunder  the  Jews  so  alluring  as  in 
the  capital,  where  the  wealthiest  Jews  resided.  The  Jews 
there  were,  of  course,  numerous.  But  just  as  Alexandria, 
Antiochia,  Rome,  and  other  capitals  were  points  of  gravita¬ 
tion  not  only  for  the  Jews  but  also  for  all  sorts  of  disreputable 
characters  to  whom  murder  meant  nothing,  if  there  was 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  261 


any  profit  to  be  derived  from  it,  so  was  Susa.  Thus  the 
lower  strata  of  society  were  more  numerous  there  than 
the  Jews,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  execute  Haman’s  decree, 
being  certain  of  accomplishing  their  task.  Though  repulsed 
on  the  first  day,  they  were  not  discouraged,  and  intended 
to  resume  their  attack  on  the  following  day.  They  could 
legally  do  so,  in  accordance  with  Haman’s  decree,  but  the 
Jews  had  no  legal  right  of  defending  themselves  and 
offering  resistance  to  a  royal  decree.  Self-defence  would 
have  been  natural  and  pardonable,  but  not  lawful,  and  the 
conscience  of  acting  in  a  lawless  manner  is  discouraging, 
and  would  have  given  an  advantage  to  their  enemies  over 
them.  Seeing  that  in  the  issuing  of  the  decree  an  error 
had  been  committed,  Esther  hastened  to  the  king  to  correct 
it.  Upon  being  informed  by  the  king  that  in  the  encounter 
of  the  Jews  with  their  adversaries  the  former  had  been 
victorious  and  killed  five  hundred  men,  Esther  answered : 
This  is  of  no  avail.  The  condition  of  the  Jews  is  still 
precarious.  The  enemies  would  resume  the  attack  to¬ 
morrow,  and  the  Jews  have  no  legal  right  to  defend 
themselves.  Therefore  the  force  of  the  decree  ousrht  to  be 
extended  for  the  next  day.  Furthermore,  the  exposing 
of  the  bodies  of  Haman’s  sons  might  have  a  deterrent 
effect  upon  many  of  the  people,  and  thus  might  save 
bloodshed  and  make  it  easier  for  the  Jews  to  defend 
themselves.  The  king  granted  Esther’s  request,  which 
was  not  unfounded,  as  on  the  next  day  the  Jews  were 
attacked  again  and  defended  themselves  successfully.^® 

The  commentators  who  condemn  Esther’s  request  are  wrong  even 
from  their  own  point  of  view.  If  the  Jews  had  been  permitted  to  attack  all 
those  who  had  wronged  them  in  the  past,  does  it  stand  to  reason  that  those 
who  had  escaped  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar  should  get  away  with  impunity  ? 


262  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  9 


The  number  seventy-five  thousand  of  the  slain  Gentiles 
in  all  the  provinces  of  the  empire  is  in  all  probability 
a  late  exaggeration.  The  Greek  version  reports  fifteen 
thousand.  However,  if  the  Jews  had  been  actually  attacked 
everywhere  in  all  localities,  the  former  number  would  have 
been  too  low  an  estimate.  But  there  is  scarcely  room  for 
doubt  that  in  most  places  the  Jews  were  left  in  peace  and, 
thus,  under  no  necessity  of*  defending  themselves.  For 
a  mob  intent  upon  plunder  is,  as  a  rule,  cowardly,  and 
perceiving  the  Jews  well  prepared  for  their  defence,  and 
moreover,  being  assisted  by  the  ofificials,  did  not  make 
any  attempt  to  execute  Haman’s  decree.  This  fact  may 
perhaps  be  seen  in  the  clause,  ‘  and  had  rest  from  their 
enemies  ’  (DnU'''iND  n'iJ'i).  This  statement  seems  to  be  out 
of  place  in  this  connexion,  and  the  author  may  have 
intended  to  indicate  thereby,  that  in  some  localities  they 
had  rest  from  their  enemies  and  were  not  compelled  to 
defend  themselves. 

However,  though  the  Jews  were  victorious  and  thus 
succeeded  in  frustrating  Haman’s  decree,  we  must  not 
imagine  that  they  did  not  suffer  any  losses  in  the  encounters. 
It  goes  without  saying  that  many  Jews  must  have  lost 
their  lives  in  these  riots,  and  the  number  of  their  slain 
brethren  altogether  may  have  been  not  much  below  that 
of  their  enemies.  Our  author,  however,  is  not  to  blame 
for  omitting  this  fact,  as  on  this  point  he  acted  like  all 
other  biblical  authors,  who  only  in  case  of  defeat,  but  not 
in  that  of  victory,  record  the  losses  of  the  Jews  in  their 
wars.  We  are  not  informed  whether  any  Israelites  fell 
in  the  battles  against  Sihon  and  Og,  at  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  in  the  wars  of  Deborah,  Jephtha,  &c.  The  Books 
of  the  Maccabees  do  not  inform  us  either  of  the  losses  of 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  263 


the  Jews  in  their  victorious  campaigns.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  Book  of  Esther.  Facts  of  this  kind  we  have  to  read 
between  the  lines.  But  the  loss  of  the  men  who  fell  as 
champions  of  Israel  did  not  prevent  the  survivors  from 
celebrating  joyfully  their  deliverance  from  complete  anni¬ 
hilation. 

Now  in  the  description  of  the  successful  defence  of  the 
Jews,  it  is  repeatedly  stated,  ‘  But  on  the  spoil  they  laid 
not  their  hands  and  our  author  intended  to  emphasize 
thereby  that  the  Jews  in  their  encounters  with  their  adver¬ 
saries  were  not  actuated  by  greed,  and  ignored  the  provision 
of  the  second  decree  that  permitted  them  ‘  to  take  the 
spoil  of  them  for  a  prey  ’.  But  this  provision  is  found 
only  in  the  Massoretic  version  of  Mordecai’s  decree,  while 
the  Greek  version  of  the  latter  has  no  reference  to  the 
spoil  of  the  Jews’  enemies.  Nevertheless,  in  the  execution 
of  the  decree,  9.  15,  16,  the  latter  version  contains  the 
corresponding  statement,  kol  ovSeu  SiripTraa-av.  But  it  has 
been  repeatedly  pointed  out  that  the  Greek  version  is 
a  rendering  of  the  original  Hebrew  text  of  our  story,  while 
the  present  Massoretic  text  had  been  considerably  inter¬ 
polated  in  a  later  period,  and  this  contention  does  not  seem 
to  be  borne  out  in  this  case  at  least,  where  the  Greek 
version  testifies  to  the  originality  of  the  Massoretic  text. 
However,  the  permission  ‘to  take  the  spoil  of  them  for 
a  prey’  may  be  implied  in  the  clause  ‘to  deal  with  their 
adversaries  according  unto  their  own  will  ’  {)(^prjaOaL  rois^ 
olvtlBlkol^  avTOdv  .  .  .  o)?  povXovTai), 

The  Festival  of  Purim  commemorating  the  deliverance  Esther  9. 
of  the  Jews  from  utter  destruction,  having  been  established, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  our  narrative,  by  Mordecai 
and  Esther,  and  not  by  the  Sopherim,  had  no  religious 


264  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

character.  The  Sopherim,  though  grateful  to  Mordecai 
and  Esther  for  their  intervention,  could  not  have  proclaimed 
them  as  saviours  of  Israel.  The  Rabbis  seemed  to  have 
preserved  a  tradition  that  the  Sopherim  refused  to  sanction 
the  establishment  of  Purim.^’^  Mordecai  and  Esther,  the 
founders  of  this  festival,  having  no  religious  authority, 
could  not  encumber  the  Jews  with  new  religious  observances. 
Moreover,  considering  their  character,  we  may  doubt 
whether .  they  greatly  cared  for  religious  ceremonies,  and 
it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  have  been  inclined  to 
impose  them  upon  other  people.  Thus  Purim  was  a  purely 
secular  festival,  like  Independence  Day,  on  the  Fourth  of 
July,  the  character  of  which  would  unquestionably  have 
been  different,  and  might  have  been  like  the  American 
Thanksgiving  Day,  if  it  had  been  instituted  by  the  Church. 
But  many  years  later,  having  been  successfully  introduced 
and  generally  established,  the  Festival  of  Purim  had  to  be 
taken  cognizance  of  by  the  Sopheijm.  Otherwise,  having 
a  secular  character  and  being  celebrated  simultaneously 
with  a  great  Persian  festival,  as  demonstrated  in  chapter 
VII,  Purim  was  bound  to  become  an  idolatrous  festival 
and  to  be  identified  with  that  of  the  Persians,  as,  indeed, 
modern  scholars  do.  To  prevent  such  an  identification, 
the  Sopherim  wrote  down  the  story  of  Purim  and  intro¬ 
duced  its  reading  in  the  synagogues. 

The  special  features  of  this  Festival  were,  ‘  sending 
portions  one  to  another,  and  gifts  to  the  poor’.  Now 
modern  critics  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  old 
Persian  festival  Farwardigan  had  been  celebrated  in  the 
same  way.^^  But  it  is  quite  natural  that  a  Jewish  festival 
instituted  in  the  Persian  empire  should  be  celebrated  in 

See  chapter  V,  note  73. 


See  chapter  VII. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  265 


accordance  with  the  customs  of  the  country,  provided  the 
latter  are  not  of  a  polytheistic  character  or  contrary  to 
the  Jewish  ethical  conceptions.  The  originators  of  the 
Festival  of  Purim  were  Mordecai  and  Esther,  and  having 
been  Persians,  ordered  its  celebration  according  to  Persian 
customs.  If  its  originators  had  been  the  Sopherim  of 
Babylonia  or  Palestine,  we  may  doubt  whether  these 
Persian  customs  would  have  been  made  its  special  features. 
However,  these  customs,  conducive  to  the  promotion  of 
goodwill  and  charity,  are  so  fully  in  accordance  with  Jewish 
ethics  that,  no  matter  what  their  origin  may  have  been, 
the  Sopherim  could  not  have  abolished  them  when  they 
sanctioned  Purim  as  Jewish  festival. 

Our  narrative  distinctly  states  that  Mordecai  himself  Esther  9. 

23-5. 

wrote  down  the  antecedents  of  the  memorial  days  which 
the  Jews  should  establish  among  themselves  :  ‘  And  the  Jews 
took  upon  them  to  do  as  they  had  begun,  and  as  Mordecai 
had  written  unto  them.’^®  Our  author  thus  testified  to 
the  existence  of  a  ‘  Letter  of  Purim  ’,  written  by  Mordecai 
himself,  an  historical  source,  from  which  he  drew  in  the 
composition  of  his  narrative.  But,  while  we  have  no  means 
to  ascertain  how  far  he  relied  upon  this  historical  document, 
and  how  far  upon  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  or  tradition, 
there  can  be  no  room  for  doubt  that  in  the  verses  24-5  we 
have  an  almost  literal  quotation  from  the  Letter  of  Mordecai. 

This  quotation  contains  a  pithy  account  of  the  causes  of 
both  the  danger  to  the  Jews  and  their  deliverance.  This 
account  being  an  historical  source  of  the  first  importance, 

The  clause  *  (the  Jews  took  upon  them)  to  do  as 

they  had  begun  can  scarcely  refer  to  the  first  year  in  which  they  had 
been  delivered  from  their  enemies,  as  Haupt  explains,  but  it  is  more  likely 
that  the  Jews  spontaneously  began  to  observe  the  days  of  their  deliverance 
as  Memorial  Days. 


266  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


it  is  worth  while  to  investigate  whether  it  is  fully  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  that  presented  by  our  author  in  his  narrative. 

The  Massoretic  text  containing  Mordecai’s  own  account 
of  the  antecedents  of  Purim  reads  as  follows  : 


‘  Because  Haman  the  son  of 
Hammedatha,  the  Agagite, 
the  enemy  of  all  the  Jews 
had  devised  against  the  Jews 
to  destroy  them, 
and  had  cast  pur,  that  is,  the 
lot, 

to  discomfit  them,  and  to  de¬ 
stroy  them ; 

but  when  she  came  before  the 
king, 

he  commanded  by  letters 
that  his  wicked  device  which 
he  had  devised 

against  the  Jews,  should  return 
upon  his  own  head  ; 
and  that  he  and  his  sons  should 
be  hanged  ^ 

on  the  gallows.’ 


Nmon  p  pn 'd 

D'Tin'n  nniv 

mnN’i?  bv  2m 

Nin  Tis 
n'i2i6) 

nsnni 

2m.  nynn 

bv  DninM  bi: 
vn  ns"!  imN  ibm 
rvn 


A  critical  examination  of  these  passages  purporting  to 
contain  a  quotation  from  Mordecai’s  Letter  of  Purim  shows 
clearly  that  the  present  Hebrew  text  could  not  have  been 


The  contents  of  Mordecai’s  Letter  of  Purim  ought  to  have  been  given 
after  ’’D'llD  .  .  .  between  verses  22  and  23,  and  it  looks  like  an 

afterthought  of  our  author  in  quoting  this  letter  after  informing  us  that 
‘the  Jews  undertook  to  do  as  they  had  begun,  and  as  Mordecai  had  written 
unto  them  This  quotation  was  indeed  unnecessary,  and  its  only  purpose 
was  to  explain  the  name  of  Purim  :  ‘  Wherefore  they  called  these  days 
Purim,  after  the  name  of  Pur.’ 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  267 


handed  down  correctly,  as  we  encounter  there  numerous 
difficulties.  In  the  first  place,  our  author  being  a  very 
good  stylist,  it  is  rather  strange  that  just  here  his  style 
should  be  so  awkward  as  to  contain  identical  expressions, 
as  repeated  twice  in  one  and  the  same  verse, and 

D'TiiTn  hv  repeated  in  two  verses  following  immediately 
one  another.  Secondly,  the  singular  term  UDnb,  which 
literally  means  ‘  to  excite,  disperse,  drive  away  is  here 
out  of  place.  Cassel’s  suggestion  that  the  author  used 
this  term  as  a  play  upon  the  name  of  Haman,^^  is  not  to 
be  taken  seriously. Thirdly,  the  clause  nNaii, 

if  it  should  be  translated  ‘  and  when  she  came  before  the 
king’,  referring  to  Esther,  as  generally  interpreted,  would 
be  syntactically  wrong,  as  Esther  had  not  been  mentioned 
in  the  context.  The  suggestion  of  many  modern  com¬ 
mentators  that  the  suffix  in  should  be  construed  as 

neuter,  referring  to  the  conspiracy  of  Eiaman,  and  thus  the 
clause  should  be  translated  ^  and  when  it  came  before  the 
king  rests  upon  the  fundamental  error  in  the  interpreta- 

Siegfried  believes  tha^  the  first  is  an  erroneous  repetition. 

He  is  wrong,  since  D^TlPl'n  bv  without  would  be  meaningless, 

and  we  would  expect  at  least  D^THTTI  bv  HVI  ‘  he  devised  evil  against 

the  Jews  If  so,  the  whole  clause  masS  bv  would  have  to 

be  regarded  as  a  gloss. 

^2  Similarly  Haupt  {Critical Notes ^  p.  188),  who  observes;  ‘The  assonance 
with  the  name  Haman  might  be  imitated  by  translating :  to  harm  them 
or  to  mayhem  them 

However,  the  possibility  that  some  Sopher  at  the  Purim-table  permitted 
himself  the  witty  remark  JDn  '3  jCH  NIpiJ  ‘  Was  he  not  rightly 
named  Haman,  for  he  had  excited  us?’,  may  be  freely  granted.  But  this 
would  not  have  been  inserted  in  the  text. 

So  Bertheau- Russel,  Wildeboer,  Siegfried^  &c.  But  these  com¬ 
mentators  correctly  contend  that  Haman  did  not  obtain  his  decree  by  a 
conspiracy,  and  that  the  king  was  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  it  was  aimed 
at  the  Jews.  In  accepting  this  interpretation,  we  would  have  to  assume 


268  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


tion  of  the  event,  assuming  that  the  king  did  not  have 
the  slightest  knowledge  of  Haman’s  intentions  in  confirming 
his  decree,  and  that  it  was  a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of 
Haman.  Thus  such  a  construction  of  the  sufifix  in 
is  impossible.  Fourthly,  the  peculiar  expression  Dy 
“iSDn,  which  literally  means  ‘he  said  with  the  letter’,  if  it 
should  mean  ‘  he  commanded  by  letters  ’,  as  translated 
above,  would  be  rather  awkward,  and  can  scarcely  be 
attributed  to  our  author.  He  could  not  have  been  at  a 
loss  for  a  proper  expression,  as  the  phrase  m  iHJ  frequently 
occurs  in  this  narrative,  and  could  have  expressed  himself 

m  iDJ.  Fifthly,  according  to  our  narrative,  the  king 
did  not  command  by  letters  that  Haman  and  his  sons 
should  be  hanged,  and  it  is  unlikely  that  our  author  should 
have  quoted  a  version  contradicting  his  own  narrative.^^ 
Finally,  the  king  did  not  say  exactly  that  Haman’s  wicked 
device  should  return  upon  his  own  head. 

But,  wfiile  in  the  Massoretic  text  we  encounter  linguistic 
and  exegetical  difficulties,  turning  to  the  Greek  version, 
the  corresponding  passages  are  clear  and  in  full  agreement 
with  the  preceding  narrative.  This  version  reads  as 
follows : 

‘How  Haman  the  son  of  irm  "Afiav 'A/jcaSdOov  6  MaKe- 
Hamadatha,  the  Macedo- 
nian, 

that  Mordecai’s  version  of  the  main  event  differed  on  the  most  essential 
point  from  that  of  our  author.  Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  i88)  likewise 
objects  to  such  an  interpretation,  and  observes  :  ‘  does  not  mean 

when  it  came,  but  when  she  came.  The  author  of  the  original  book  would  not 
have  written  but  "IflDN  5^1321  ’.  However,  there  must 

be  some  reason  why  the  latter  expression  should  have  been  changed  in  the 
Massoretic  text  to  nXDm. 

Or  should  it  refer  to  the  decree  given  in  Susa  at  Esther’s  request  that 
Haman’s  sons  after  their  death  should  be  impaled  ? 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  269 


had  been  hostile  toward  them, 
and  how  he  had  cast 
the  stone  and  lot  to  destroy 
them  ; 

and  how  he  went  to  the  king, 

saying,  to  hang  Mordecai ; 

but  the  wicked  device,  which 
he  devised 

against  the  Jews,  happened 
unto  himself, 

and  he  was  hanged  himself 
and  his  own  children.’ 


knoX^H^L  avTovs  KaOoo^  Wero 

ylrT](pL(Tfia  Kal  KXrjpov  d^d- 
VLoraL  avrovs 

Kal  coy  elcrrjXOei'  Trpoy  rbv 
(SacriXia 

Xiycav  Kpe/xda-aL  rbv  Map- 
Soy^a'lov 

ocra  Se  i7r€)(^eLpr]a€u  eird^ai 
kirl  Tous* 

*Iov8aiov^  KaKOL  ctt’  avrbv 
kyivovTo 

Kal  kKpepdorOrj  avrb^ 

Kal  rd  TeKva  avrov. 


With  the  exception  of  rendering  Agagi  with  ‘  Mace¬ 
donian  ’  which  in  Alexandria  may  have  been  an  idiomatic 
designation  for  an  inexorable  enemy  of  the  Jews,  and 
making  allowance  for  the  clause  ‘saying,  to  hang  Mordecai  ’, 
corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  nx  r\)bT)b 

(Esther  6.  4),  which  is  no  doubt  a  mere  expansion,  there 
is  not  the  least  objection,  be  it  linguistically  or  exegetically, 
to  the  contents  of  Mordecai’s  presentation  of  the  ante¬ 
cedents  of  Purim  in  the  Greek  version.  Thus  the  original 
Hebrew  text  that  was  rendered  into  Greek  must  have  read 
as  follows  : 


‘  Because  Haman  the  son  of 
Hammedatha,  the  Agagite, 
the  enemy  of  all  the  Jews,  had 
cast  pur, 

that  is,  the  lot,  to  destroy  them  ; 
But  when  he  came  before  the 
king, 


Nrnnn  p  [on  >2 

maxi? 


270  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


returned  his  wicked  device  3Ern  nb 

which  he  had  devised 

against  the  Jews  upon  his  own  bv  Dnin'n  bv 

head, 

and  they  hanged  him  and  his  bv  vn  DNI  iniN  )br\) 

sons  on  the  gallows.’ 

Thus,  according  to  this  statement  quoted  from  Mordecai’s 
Letter  of  Purim,  Haman’s  downfall  was  caused  when  he 
came  to  the  king  with  the  intention  of  asking  permission 
for  Mordecai’s  execution.  This  is  essentially  true,  as 
Haman’s  humiliation  foreshadowed  his  downfall.  To  be 
sure,  Haman  himself  did  not  have  a  chance  of  laying  \his 

s 

request  before  the  king.  However,  it  has  been  pointed 
out,  that  but  for  Harbonah  informing  the  king  of  the 
gallows  prepared  by  Haman  for  Mordecai’s  execution, 
Haman  might  have  been  brought  before  the  judges,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Persian  laws,  and  in  this  case  might  have  been 
able  to  prove  his  innocence,  and  then  perhaps  regained  his 
influence  with  the  king,  and  thus  his  final  downfall  was 
actually  due  to  his  intention  of  executing  Mordecai.  This 
was  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  translator  of  the  clause 
^i^b  nN3ni,  expressing  it  by  the  addition  Xiycou 
KpeiidcraL  tov  MapSo^^aiov  ‘  saying,  to  hang  Mordecai  ’. 
Plowever,  this  interpretation  is  by  no  means  certain,  as  the 
clause  under  discussion  may  mean  that  Haman’s  downfall 
was  caused  when  he  came  to  dine  with  the  king  on  Esther’s 
invitation.  This  would  be  fully  in  agreement  with  the 
account  of  our  author. 

However,  the  corruption  of  these  passages  in  the 
Massoretic  text  cannot  be  without  reason,  and  requires 
some  explanation.  May  this  not  be  due  to  marginal  notes 
of  some  exegetes  who  tried  to  interpret  the  clause  nNini 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  271 

in  various  ways  ?  That  exegetes  must  have 
tampered  with  the  text  under  consideration  is  plainly  seen 
from  the  difference  between  the  Massoretic  and  Greek 
versions.  There  may  have  been  other  interpreters  who 
differed  in  their  explanations  from  the  latter,  and  referred 
the  suffix  in  neither  to  Haman  nor  to  Esther  but 

to  Mordecai,  that  is  to  say,  that  Haman’s  wicked  device 
was  frustrated  when  Mordecai  came  before  the  king  and 
was  installed  as  grand  vizier,  and  would  refer  to  the  state¬ 
ment  of  our  narrative  :  ‘  On  that  day  did  the  king  Ahasuerus 
give  the  house  of  Haman,  the  Jews’  enemy,  unto  Esther  the 
queen,  and  Mordecai  came  before  the  king'  Though 
Mordecai’s  name  is  not  mentioned  in  this  connexion,  it 
would  not  be  syntactically  wrong,  as  we  could  not  expect 

'a'TirD  Raai  ‘  when  Mordecai  came  before  the 
king  since  our  author  quotes  in  oblique  narrative  from 
Mordecai’s  letter  who  wrote  'jsi?  'Naai  ‘  when  I  came 
before  the  king  May  not  this  have  been  the  meaning 
of  a  marginal  note  of  some  interpreter,  "laon  Dy  "lox  ‘  he 
said  in  the  letter’,  and  there  was  no  need  to  mention 
Mordecai’s  name?^®  To  be  sure,  this  is  an  awkward 
expression  ;  but  in  a  casual  marginal  note,  we  ought  not 
to  expect  elegance  of  style,  and  the  interpreter  may  not 
have  been  a  stylist  at  all.  On  the  other  hand,  another 
interpreter  thought  like  the  Greek  translator  that  the  suffix 
in  refers  to  Haman  and  expressed  this  interpretation 

in  a  marginal  note,  pni?  ‘it  refers  to  Haman’,  while  a 
copyist  might  have  seen  in  this  note  an  Aramaism  for  DJoni? 
‘  to  excite  them  and  thus  corrected  it  and  inserted  it 

Haupt  {Critical  Notes,  p.  188  f.)  correctly  perceived  the  difficulties  in 
the  passages  under  consideration  as  regards  “iQDn  DV  "IDK  as  a  tertiary 
gloss. 


272  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  i 
26. 


before  013x5?.  Finally,  the  first  013x5?  oniuM  5?y  32^n  may 
be  due  also  to  a  marginal  note  of  some  interpreter  who 
thought  that  Haman’s  intention  to  destroy  the  Jews  ought 
to  have  been  mentioned  before  the  casting  of  the  lots. 
This  is,  of  course,  unnecessary,  as  Haman’s  hostility  toward 
the  Jews  is  expressed  in  the  designation  O'lUM  5?3  inv 
‘  the  enemy  of  all  the  Jews  ’.  However,  though  the  passage 
under  discussion  in  the  Massoretic  text  is  not  original,  and 
linguistically  incorrect,  the  interpreter  showed  good  exe- 
getical  sense,  as  Esther  and  not  Mordecai  was  the  main 
factor  in  frustrating  Haman’s  decree.  Nor  did  he  accept 
the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  version,  though  linguistically 
more  correct,  believing  that  Haman’s  fate  was  not  due  to 
the  intention  of  executing  Mordecai. 

I.  As  to  the  etymology  of  the  name  of  Purim,  it  has 
already  been  pointed  out  that  if  the  latter  was  etymo¬ 
logically  connected  with  the  name  of  the  old  Persian  New 
Year  festival  Farwardigdn^  as  contended  by  many  modern 
scholars,  the  Jews  adopted  this  name  as  that  of  their  own 
festival  for  the  purpose  of  disguising  its  very  nature,  as  it 
could  not  be  called  by  a  name  offensive  to  the  Persians. 
The  choice  of  an  appropriate  name  for  this  day  of  com¬ 
memoration  both  expressive  of  the  events  of  that  period, 
and  not  insulting  to  the  religious  sentiments  of  the  Gentiles, 
was  no  easy  task.  A  festival  celebrating  the  victory  of 
Monotheism  over  Polytheism  would  have  constituted  a 
continual  menace  to  the  existence  of  the  Jews.  For  this 
reason,  the  real  antecedents  of  the  danger  to  the  Jews  are 
disguised  in  our  narrative  as  far  as  possible.  The  same 
holds  true  to  the  name  of  Purim,  though  ostensibly  identical 
with  that  of  the  Persian  festival,  to  the  Jews  it  was 
commemorative  of  their  deliverance:  ‘They  called  these 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  273 

days  Purim  after  the  name  of  Pur  Considering  it  from 
this  point  of  view,  we  may  compare  this  festival  to  other 
Biblical  festivals  of  the  seasons,  which  may,  indeed,  date 
from  a  pre-Israelitish  period,  as  assumed  by  many  modern 
critics,  and  which  the  Israelites  may  have  observed  even 
before  their  descent  to  Egypt,  but  nevertheless  assumed 
a  different  character  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  became 
intimately  connected  with  signal  events  in  the  history  of 
Israel. 

However,  though  the  real  antecedents  of  the  events  of 
that  period  had  to  be  disguised,  there  is  an  allusion  at 
least  to  sufferings  of  the  Jews  that  could  not  have  been 
exclusively  due  to  Haman’s  decree.  This  can  be  seen 
in  the  statement :  ‘  Therefore  for  all  the  words  of  this 
letter,  and  of  that  which  they  had  seen  concerning  this 
matter,  and  that  which  had  come  unto  them  If  we 
accept  the  current  interpretation  of  our  narrative,  this 
statement  would  seem  rather  obscure  and  almost  without 
’  any  meaning.  For  if  Haman’s  decree  against  the  Jews 
was  due  to  a  mere  freak  for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  his 
vengeance  on  Mordecai,  and  if  the  Jews  had  been  permitted 
by  Mordecai’s  decree  to  fall  upon  their  enemies,  and 
slaughter  many  thousands  of  them  without  being  attacked, 
what  did  the  Jews  see  concerning  this  matter,  and  what 

The  treatment  of  Purim  by  the  higher  critics  is  indeed  not  different 
from  that  of  other  Biblical  festivals,  since  the  critics  who  consider  the 
stories  of  the  Patriarchs  in  Genesis  as  merely  legendary  traditions  partly 
doubt  and  partly  deny  that  the  Israelites  had  ever  lived  in  Canaan  before 
their  descent  to  Egypt.  And  even  the  historical  character  of  the  stories  of 
Israel’s  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  their  exodus  is  by  many  critics  doubted,  and 
by  some  denied  altogether.  Thus,  in  accordance  with  these  views,  it  is 
maintained  that  the  biblical  festivals  are  of  Canaanitic  origin,  which  the 
Israelites  adopted  after  their  entrance  into  Canaan,  and  that  all  the  historical 
events  these  festivals  are  said  to  commemorate  are  later  fabrications. 


H. 


T 


274  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Esther  i 
27-8. 


did  come  unto  them  ?  They  were  merely  for  a  short  time, 
actually  only  for  a  few  days,  in  danger  of  being  exterminated ; 
but  the  danger  having  been  averted,  we  cannot  assert 
that  the  sufferings  they  experienced  in  mental  anguish 
during  this  short  period  was,  ‘  what  they  had  seen  con¬ 
cerning  this  matter,  and  that  which  had  come  unto  them 
But  this  statement  will  be  viewed  in  a  different  light  if 
we  see  in  it  an  allusion  to  the  religious  persecutions  the 
Jews  suffered  and  witnessed  prior  to  Haman’s  decree,  and 
if  we  consider  that  even  after  Haman’s  execution  and 
Mordecai’s  elevation  the  danger  to  them  was  by  no  means 
completely  averted,  and  that  though  given  a  chance  of 
fighting  for  their  existence,  their  fate  was  still  in  the 
balance.^^ 

I.  To  those  who  accept  the  current  interpretation  of  our 
narrative,  the  long  description  of  the  establishing  of  the 
Festival  of  Purim  may  seem  tiresome  and  unnecessary.^^ 
It  reads  as  follows :  '  The  Jews  ordained,  and  took  upon 
them,  and  upon  their  seed,  and  upon  all  such  as  joined 
themselves  unto  them,  so  as  it  should  not  fail,  that  they 
would  keep  these  two  days  according  to  the  writing 

The  reference  to  those  events  may  seem  somewhat  cryptic.  But  the 
author  could  not  have  referred  plainly  to  the  persecutions  the  Jews  had 
undergone  on  account  of  their  religion,  and  could  allude  only  to  those 
events.  He  may  have  intended  to  say  that  the  Jews  accepted  this  festival 
not  only  to  comply  with  Mordecai’s  request  but  also  on  account  of  their  own 
experiences  in  the  days  of  persecutions. 

The  whole  passage  is  generally  considered  an  unnecessary  duplicate 
to  IX,  19. 

It  seems  that  the  actual  observance  of  the  Festival  of  Purim,  which  is 
limited  to  one  day,  is  not  strictly  in  accordance  with  this  passage,  unless  we 
assume  that  the  latter  statement  refers  to  both  the  inhabitants  of  the  un¬ 
walled  towns  and  of  Susa,  of  which  the  former  observed  the  fourteenth  day 
of  Adar,  and  the  latter  the  fifteenth.  But  Susa  was  not  the  only  city  in 
which  the  latter  day  was  observed,  as  the  same  is  true  also  of  the  walled 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  275 


thereof,  and  according  to  the  appointed  time  thereof,  every 
year ;  and  that  these  days  should  be  remembered  and  kept 

cities,  whose  inhabitants  observed  the  same  day.  The  Jewish  tradition  on 
this  point  is  well  founded,  since  the  statement  that  the  Jews  of  the  villages, 
that  dwell  in  unwalled  towns,  observe  the  fourteenth  day  of  Adar  forces  the 
conclusion  that  the  Jews  of  walled  cities  observe  the  fifteenth.  This  is 
apparently  confirmed  by  the  Greek  version,  which  contains  the  addition  : 
'  But  those  who  dwell  in  the  cities  keep  also  the  fifteenth  day  of  Adar  as 
a  joyous  and  good  day  by  sending  dainties  to  their  neighbours  ’.  This  is 
probably  an  unnecessary  expansion,  and  not  a  part  of  the  original  Hebrew 
text.  However,  the  Greek  version  seems  to  indicate  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  cities  observe  both  days,  the  fourteenth  and  the  fifteenth  of  Adar,  and 
this  would  not  be  in  accordance  with  Jewish  custom  and  tradition.  Further¬ 
more,  the  term  fxrjTpoiroXeis,  literally  ^mother-cities’,  means  capitals,  and 
not  walled  cities  in  general.  Thus  the  Greek  version  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  Jews  who  dwell  in  capitals  should  celebrate  Purim  (also) 
on  the  fifteenth,  commemorating  thereby  the  events  of  the  capital  Susa. 
But  the  very  statement  that  the  dwellers  of  unwalled  towns  observe  the 
fourteenth  shows  that  those  of  walled  places  observe  the  following  day, 
and  not  merely  those  of  capitals.  This  fact  leaves  little  room  for  doubt 
that  the  addition  in  the  Greek  version  is  an  illogical  scribal  gloss.  The 
Rabbinical  tradition  on  this  point  that  distinguishes  between  unwalled  and 
Vy^alled  towns  is  linguistically  and  logically  in  conformity  with  the  statement 
of  our  narrative.  However,  the  passage  under  discussion  which  reads 
ninsn  nyn  nnisn  nmn^n  P  can  scarcely  be  original.  This 

has  already  been  noted  by  Haupt  and  Paton,  who  consider  the  clause 
ninsn  '’lyin  which  is  an  exact  translation  of  an  early 

explanatory  gloss.  But  the  meaning  of  the  latter  term  must  have  been  well 
known,  since  the  terms  pPS  niPS  ''PD  often  occur  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  there  was  no  need  for  an  explanation  of  such  a  term.  Therefore,  may 
we  not  venture  the  suggestion  that  the  original  passage  was  DPin'n  p  l^y 
niPDn  PyD  D''D”1Dn  ‘Wherefore  the  Persian  Jews  that  dwelt  in 

the  unwalled  towns  ’  ?  Now  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  observance  of 
the  Festival  of  Purim  was  obligatory  only  on  those  Jews  and  their  descen¬ 
dants  whose  countries  at  that  period  formed  a  part  of  the  Persian  empire ; 
and  we  have  observed  that  the  Egyptian  Jews  knew  nothing  of  this  festival, 
since  Egypt  was  not  a  part  of  the  Persian  empire  at  the  period  of  these  events 
,  see  chapter  I,  note  6).  May  we  not  suggest  that  in  the  Alexandrian  period, 
when  the  former  extent  of  the  Persian  empire  was  not  generally  known 
any  longer,  some  copyist  rightly  objected  to  the  term  D'DIDH,  which  would 
show  that  Purim  was  an  exclusive  festival  of  the  Persian  Jews,  and 

T  2 


276  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

throughout  every  generation,  every  family,  every  province, 
and  every  city ;  and  these  days  of  Purim  should  not  fail 
from  among  the  Jews,  nor  the  memorial  of  them  perish 
from  their  seed  v^ut  considered  in  the  light  of  our  inter¬ 
pretation,  the  observance  of  the  Festival  of  Purim  is  of 
special  significance  for  the  Jews  of  all  periods  and  of  all 
countries,  even  more  than  other  biblical  festivals.  For 
the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews  in  that  period  was 
not  due  to  singular  circumstances  and  conditions  but  to 
the  fact  that  their  religion  had  come  into  a  conflict  with 
the  creeds  of  the  Gentiles.  The  same  danger  that  con¬ 
fronted  the  Jews  in  the  Persian  period  was  experienced 
by  the  Jews  of  many  countries  innumerable  times,  and 
is  by  no  means  past.  As  long  as  the  Jews  more  or  less 
adhere  to  their  religion,  the  same  conflict  may  arise  again. 
It  is  certainly  no  exaggeration  to  declare  that  the  Festival 
of  Purim  is  intimately  connected  with  the  existence  of  ‘  the 
Jews’,  that  is  to  say,  the  adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
It  is  more  their  own  deliverance  the  Jews  commemorate 
on  this  festival  than  that  of  their  ancestors  in  the  days 
of  Mordecai  and  Esther.  The  words  of  thanks :  ‘  And 
this  is  which  stood  in  good  stead  to  our  ancestors  and 
ourselves ;  for  not  one  alone  hath  arisen  against  us  to 
exterminate  us,  but  in  every  generation  enemies  are  arising 
against  us  to  exterminate  us ;  but  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  is  delivering  us  out  of  their  hand  are  perhaps 
more  appropriate  for  the  Festival  of  Purim  than  for  that 
of  Passover,  on  which  they  are  recited.  The  Rabbis, 
notwithstanding  their'  erroneous  conception  of  the  events 

changed  it  into  an  emendation  which  might  well  have  been  suggested 

by  the  following  clause  nillDn  ? 

See  Hagadah-shel-Pesah. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  277 

of  our  story,  showed  nevertheless,  perhaps  by  intuition, 
good  historical  sense  in  declaring :  ‘  If  all  biblical  festivals 
should  be  abolished,  the  days  of  Purim  will  always  remain/ 

The  latter  can  disappear  only  when  there  should  no  longer 
be  any  conflict  between  the  creed  of  the  Jews  and  those 
of  the  Gentiles :  with  the  disappearance  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  This  is  exactly  what  our  narrative  meant  to 
indicate  and  to  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the  Jews  that 
the  danger  they  escaped  is  not  a  matter  to  be  forgotten, 
that  their  descendants  and  all  such  as  joined  themselves 
unto  them,  no  matter  in  what  country  they  might  live, 
would  be  exposed  to  the  same  danger.  The  commemora¬ 
tion  of  this  festival  will  be  a  comfort  to  them  in  their 
tribulations,  strengthen  their  trust  in  the  God  of  Israel, 
and  save  them  from  utter  despair.  The  memorial  of  them 
will  never  perish  from  their  seed  as  long  as  they  continue 
to  be  ‘Jews b 

However,  notwithstanding  the  Jews  had  already  ordained  Esther  n. 

29—30. 

and  taken  upon  themselves  the  observance  of  the  Festival 
of  Purim.  our  narrative  informs  us:  ‘Then  Esther  the 
queen,  the  daughter  of  Abihail,  and  Mordecai  the  Jew, 
wrote  with  all  authority,  to  confirm  this  second  letter  of 
Purim.  And  he  sent  letters  unto  all  the  Jews,  to  the 
hundred  twenty  and  seven  provinces  of  the  kingdom  of 
Ahasuerus  with  words  of  peace  and  truth.’  This  statement 
is  rather  obscure.  The  Festival  of  Purim  having  already 

Though  they  based  their  saying  upon  the  statement  ^  These  days 
should  not  fail  from  among  the  Jews,  nor  the  memorial  of  them  perish  from 
their  seed  which  they  regarded  as  a  prophetic  prediction.  Considering 
the  matter  in  the  light  of  our  conception,  the  Rabbis  were  perfectly  justified 
in  holding  the  Book  of  Esther  in  such  high  veneration  (see  chapter  I, 
note  26). 

53  DniEH  TH'  nnyiDH  5)3 


278  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

been  established  and  accepted  by  the  Jews,  what  need  was 
there  for  exhorting  them  to  do  so  in  a  second  letter? 
This  evidently  indicates  that  notwithstanding  Mordecai’s 
first  letter,  the  Jews  were  by  no  means  ready  and  willing 
to  accept  the  observance  of  this  festival,  and  Esther  and 
Mordecai  had  to  write  ‘  with  all  authority  ’  for  the  second 
time  to  confirm  ‘  this  second  letter  of  Purim  Even  then 
it  does  not  seem  to  have  had  the  effect  desired,  as  in 
verse  32  it  is  stated  that  '  the  commandment  of  Esther 
confirmed  these  matters  of  Purim  Why  should  Mordecai 
and  Esther  have  insisted  upon  the  observance  of  this 
festival?  This  was  surely  neither  due  to  their  ambition 
of  being  remembered  as  saviours  of  Israel,  nor  to  their 
religious  fervour.  Furthermore,  considering  that  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  this  festival  did  not  encumber  the  Jews  with 
special  religious  observances  and  mainly  consisted  of 
making  merry,  sending  portions  one  to  another  and  gifts 
to  the  poor,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  obvious  reason 
for  the  persistent  refusal  of  the  Jews  to  accede  to  the 
demands  of  Mordecai  and  be  averse  to  the  acceptance  of 
this  obligation.  And  even  if  it  had  been  an  austere 
memorial  day,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  the  Jews 
should  have  been  opposed  to  the  observance  of  so  memor¬ 
able  an  event.  But  a  summary  of  the  salient  points  in 
our  interpretation  of  this  narrative  will  make  plain  both 
the  insistence  of  Mordecai  and  Esther  on  the  commemora¬ 
tion  of  this  event  by  the  Jews  and  the  reluctance  of  the 
latter  to  comply  with  this  request. 

The  starting-point  of  our  investigation  was  that  the 

/ 

danger  to  the  Jews  described  in  the  Book  of  Esther  was 
of  a  purely  religious  nature,  and  was  not  due  to  the  hatred 
toward  their  race,  and  that  the  antecedents  of  the  main 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  279 

event  of  our  narrative  were  the  introduction  of  anthropo¬ 
morphic  images  of  Anahita  into  the  Zoroastrian  religion 
and  the  proclaiming  of  this  goddess  as  the  representative 
of  Ahuramazda,  the  supreme  god  of  the  Persians,  her 
worship  being  enjoined  on  all  inhabitants  of  the  Persian 
empire.  The  main  festival  of  this  goddess  evidently  took 
place  in  the  month  of  Adar.  The  Jews  could  not  participate 
in  the  celebration  of  this  festival  and  thus  flagrantly  defied 
the  royal  decree  with  regard  to  the  worship  of  this  goddess. 
The  conduct  of  the  Jews  was  naturally  the  cause  of 
persecutions.  The  latter  being  without  avail,  it  became 
evident  that  the  resistance  of  the  Jews  was  exclusively  due 
to  their  religious  conceptions.  Having  been  given  the 
choice  either  to  give  up  their  religion  or  to  pay  the  supreme 
penalty  for  their  disobedience  to  the  royal  decree,  those 
Jews  who  did  not  want  to  part  with  their  religion  were 
in  imminent  danger  of  being  exterminated.  But  due  to 
Esther’s  intervention  they  escaped,  and  through  her  influence 
the  decree  concerning  the  worship  of  Anahita  was  not 
enforced.  However,  the  danger  was  still  looming  ahead, 
and  there  was  no  guarantee  for  the  future,  as  some  day 
the  same  trouble  might  start  again  and,  as  already  observed, 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
HI  Ochus.  This  danger  would  have  been  minimized  if 
the  Jews  could  have  seen  their  way  to  participate  in  the 
celebration  of  Anahita’s  festival  without  transgressing  the 
principal  tenet  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Such  a  participation 
being  tantamount  to  idolatry  was  out  of  the  question. 
Since,  however,  Haman  selected  as  the  auspicious  day  for 
the  execution  of  his  decree  the  festival  of  Anahita,  the 
latter,  of  course,  synchronised  with  the  day  of  their  deliver¬ 
ance,  and  in  establishing  this  day  as  the  Jewish  festival 


28o  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


of  commemoration,  and  it  being  celebrated  in  accordance 
with  the  Persian  customs,  there  was  outwardly  not  the 
least  difference  between  the  Persian  and  the  Jewish  festivals. 
Such  a  festival  seemed  a  safeguard  for  the  future,  and  for 
this  reason  Mordecai  and  Esther  insisted  upon  its  acceptance. 
Now  it  stands  to  reason  that  as  far  as  the  common  Jewish 
people  were  concerned,  they  had  no  objection  to  the 
establishment  of  this  festival.  Our  narrative  thus  correctly 
states  that  the  Jews  on  receiving  Mordecai’s  first  letter 
readily  and  willingly  acted  accordingly  and  established  the 
Festival  of  Purim. 

However,  the  establishment  of  this  festival  could  not 
but  meet  with  fierce  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Sopherim. 
The  latter  could  not  countenance  the  introduction  of  a 
festival  which  to  all  appearances  was  identical  with  the 
idolatrous  festival  celebrated  simultaneously,  and  was  bound 
to  become  identified  with  it,  when  the  cause  of  its  origin 
should  be  forgotten.  They  could  not  but  denounce 
Mordecai  for  its  introduction.  They  did  not  fail  to  impress 
upon  the  mind  of  the  people  that  all  their  sacrifices  and 
the  sufferings  they  had  undergone  were  in  vain,  if  after 
all  they  should  have  to  pretend  to  worship  Anahita.  If 
this  was  the  result  of  the  deliverance,  they  could  have 
saved  themselves  all  the  sufferings  and  persecutions  by 
pretending  to  comply  with  the  royal  decree,  as  most  of  the 
Jews  actually  did.  Little  did  the  Sopherim  care  whether 
by  the  introduction  of  such  a  festival  the  danger  to  the 
Jews  would  be  minimized.  They  were  men  of  mettle,  not 
deterred  by  any  danger,  and  ready  to  lay  down  their  lives 
at  any  time  for  the  doctrines  of  their  religion.  The  only 
danger  they  feared  was  that  threatening  the  purity  of  the 
Jewish  religion.  They  were,  of  course,  in  favour  of  estab- 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  281 


lishing  a  festival  commemorative  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
Jews,  but  a  festival  of  specifically  Jewish  character,  and  not 
on  the  day  of  the  idolatrous  festival. 

Convinced  by  the  arguments  of  the  Sopherim,  the 
people  reconsidered  their  resolution  of  establishing  the 
Festival  of  Purim  and  abandoned  its  celebration.  Thus 
Mordecai  and  Esther  had  to  combat  the  influence  of 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  Israel  in  this  matter.  In  the  end 
they  prevailed  and  the  people,  partly  grateful  to  them  for 
the  part  they  had  played  in  the  deliverance  from  the 
danger,  and  partly  forced  by  Esther’s  decree,  again  accepted 
the  Festival  of  Purim  against  the  consent  of  the  Sopherim. 
Therefore,  it  was  a  secular  feast,  without  any  religious 
jcharacter.®^  But  many  years  later,  when  Purim  had 
already  been  firmly  established  and  generally  celebrated, 
and  thus  there  was  actual  danger  that  in  the  course  of  time 
its  origin  would  sink  into  oblivion,  and  it  would,  indeed, 
become  identified  with  the  heathen  festival,  the  Sopherim 
could  not  but  re-affirm  it,  but  at  the  same  time  recorded 
the  reason  for  its  celebration  and  ordained  that  the  record 
should  annually  be  recited  on  the  day  of  this  festival. 
The  fact  that  the  record  was  compiled  in  a  manner  not 
offensive  to  the  Persians,  and  not  exposing  the  Jews  to  any 
danger,  seems  to  indicate  that  Mordecai  s  policy  of  safe¬ 
guarding  the  existence  of  the  Jews  was  not  altogether 
ignored.^^ 

The  secular  character  of  Purim  can  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  only  Biblical  festival  on  which  any  kind  of  work  is  not  prohibited. 
The  Rabbis  indeed  observe  ingeniously  :  ‘  Originally,  in  accordance  with 
Esther  9,  19,  Purim  was  intended  as  31D  DV,  in  which  work  should  be 
prohibited,  but  later  in  Mordecai’s  Letter  of  Purim,  it  was  established 
merely  as  '’lO'  “days  of  feasting  and  gladness  ”,  but  not  as 

31D  DP  (Megillah  Babli,  5^)  \ 

Who  knows  whether  the  persecutions  during  the  reign  of  ArtaxerxesIII 


282  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Considering  Mordecai’s  conciliatory  policy  of  avoiding 
as  far  as  possible  any  conflict  with  the  Gentiles,  the  state¬ 
ment :  ‘And  Mordecai  sent  letters  unto  all  the  Jews  .  . 
ivith  words  of  peace  and  truth  \  acquires  a  special  meaning. 
Peace  and  Truth  are,  as  a  rule,  contradictory  terms.  One 
who  desires  to  live  at  peace  with  his  fellow-men  must  not 
always  insist  upon  ‘  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth  ’.  Those  who  act  according  to  this  maxim 
are  bound  to  come  frequently  into  conflict  with  people  and 
cannot  live  at  peace.  To  be  sure,  it  would  be  nothing 
short  of  moral  turpitude  to  accommodate  one’s  actions  to 
the  dictates  of  peace  at  the  sacrifice  of  truth.  But,  as  in 
other  matters  so  also  here,  there  is  a  just  medium  that  lies 
between  truth  and  peace.  One  whose  first  consideration 
is  peace,  but  at  the  same  time  wants  to  act  according  to 
the  dictates  of  truth,  can  do  so  by  not  proclaiming  one’s 
innermost  thoughts.  This  was  the  policy  of  Mordecai : 
first  ‘peace’,  then  ‘truth’.  He  advised  his  co-religionists 
that  in  observing  the  Festival  of  Purim  commemorating 
their  deliverance  simultaneously  with  the  festival  of  Anahita, 
they  would  gain  both  Peace  and  Truth,  though  the  latter 
would  be  disguised.  There  was  no  need  for  proclaiming 
openly  the  different  character  of  their  own  festival.  How¬ 
ever,  this  was  by  no  means  the  principle  of  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  Israel,  neither  in  that  period  nor  later.®*^  But 

Ochus  did  not  render  the  Sopherim  more  tolerant  on  this  point  toward 
their  opponents  ? 

May  we  not  contrast  the  principle  of  Mordecai  expressed  in  the  terms 
riDNi  nm  with  the  principle  of  the  prophet  Zechariah,  in  saying 

D'lbsri  mm  ‘  wherefore  love  ye  truth  and  peace’,  and  thus  placing 
‘Truth’  before  ‘Peace’?  That  this  prophet  regarded  absolute  truth  as 
above  all  other  considerations  is  evidenced  from  his  exhortation  in  the  same 
chapter,  saying :  ‘  These  are  the  things  that  ye  shall  do  :  Speak  ye  every 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  283 

Mordecai’s  conduct  even  before  he  was  elevated  to  the 
office  of  grand  vizier,  was  governed  by  this  principle,  and 
later  it  naturally  became  the  guiding  rule  of  his  policy. 

But  the  second  Letter  of  Purim,  sent  out  by  Mordecai  Esther  n. 
and  Esther,  is  rather  obscure.  It  reads  as  follows  :  ‘  To 
confirm  these  days  of  Purim  in  their  appointed  times, 
according  as  Mordecai  the  Jew  and  Esther  the  queen  had 
enjoined  them,  and  as  they  had  ordained  for  themselves 
and  for  their  seed,  the  matters  of  the  fastings  and  their 
cry  As  far  as  the  meaning  of  this  passage  is  concerned, 
it  is  obvious:  The  Jews  are  exhorted  to  confirm  the  days 
of  Purim  in  the  same  way  as  they  had  ordained  for  them¬ 
selves  and  their  seed  the  matters  of  fastings  and  their  cry. 

It  would  thus  seem  that  the  Jews  spontaneously  had 
established  fast  days  commemorative  of  their  suffering  and 
their  deliverance.  The  question  now  arises  :  to  what  Fast 
does  this  statement  refer  to  ?  Certainly  not  to  the  Fast  of 
Esther  ("iriDN*  n^jyn),  which  is  observed  on  the  day  preceding 
the  Festival  of  Purim,  since  this  fast  day  had  not  yet 
existed  in  the  Talmudic  period.  In  the  Halakic  literature, 
as  far  as  the  present  writer  can  see,  it  is  for  the  first  time 
mentioned  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  by 
Rabbi  Jacob  Tam,^”^  who  thought  to  have  found  an  allusion 

man  the  truth  with  his  neighbour  ;  execute  the  judgement  of  truth  and  peace 
in  your  gates  ;  and  let  none  of  you  devise  evil  in  your  hearts  against  his 
neighbour’  (Zechariah  8.  16,  17,  19). 

See  the  commentary  of  Rabbi  Asher  on  Megillah,  33^^  ' 

(Amsterdam,  1698).  However,  this  Fast  must  have  been  established  and 
generally  known  in  the  ninth  century  c.  e.,  since  Al-Beruni  already  referred 
to  it  (see  Lagarde’s  Purim).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  Fast,  though  not  yet 
known  in  the  Talmudic  period,  must  have  been  established  not  long  after 
the  compilation  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud.  There  is  an  allusion  to  this 
Fast  in  the  Tractate  of  Sopherim,  the  compilation  of  which  is  generally 
placed  about  750-850  c.  e.  This  Tractate  has  the  following  statement : 


I 


284  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

to  that  fast-day  in  the  Talmudic  statement :  ‘  The  thirteenth 
day  of  Adar  is  a  general  day  of  assembly’  (ni^np  pT 
N^“I  This  he  explained  :  ‘  The  people  assembled 

themselves  together  on  that  day,  because  it  was  the  Fast  of 
Esther  But  this  interpretation  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously, 
and  is  merely  homiletic.  The  Talmudic  passage  under 
consideration  meant  to  say,  as  Rashi,  indeed,  explains : 
The  thirteenth  day  of  Adar  was  that  day  in  which  both 

‘  Concerning  Purim,  the  three  days  of  the  Fast  are  not  observed  con¬ 
secutively  but  separately,  on  Monday,  Thursday,  and  Monday 

Our  Rabbis  in  Palestine,  however,  introduced  the  custom  of  fasting 
one  day  after  Purim  on  account  of  Nicanor  and  his  fellows’  {Sopherim, 
chapter  17).  The  latter  part  of  this  statement  is  quite  obscure,  and  we  may 
doubt  whether  the  text  is  correctly  preserved,  as  the  passage  n)2vrinb 
Dma  Dm  seems  to  be  omitted.  The  statement  is  quite  clear  as 

soon  as  we  know  that  the  Rabbis  differed  on  the  question  whether  ^  the. 
Good  Days’,  enumerated  in  Megillath  Ta’anith,  on  which  fasting  and 
mourning  is  forbidden,  were  still  obligatory  after  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  by  Titus,  and  the  Babylonian  Talmud  decided  this  question  in  the 
negative  (Rosh  Hashanah,  19^^).  To  ‘  the  Good  Days’  belongs  also  the  Day 
of  Nicanor  which  was  observed  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar.  As  long  as  its  ob¬ 
servance  was  obligatory,  the  Fast  of  Esther  on  that  day  was  impossible. 
But  in  agreement  with  the  decision  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  the  Babylonian 
Rabbis  established  this  Fast  on  the  day  before  Purim.  This  decision, 
however,  was  probably  not  accepted  by  the  Palestinian  Rabbis  who  still 
held  that  ‘  Megillath  Ta’anith  has  not  been  abolished 
ri’:yn),  or  may  have  held  that  ‘  the  Good  Days  ’  enumerated  there  are 
still  in  force  in  the  region  where  they  had  been  originally  established,  but 
would  not  be  obligatory  in  the  diaspora.  Thus  they  could  not  observe  the 
Fast  of  Esther  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar,  since  it  would  collide  with  the  obser¬ 
vance  of  the  Day  of  Nicanor,  and  instead  of  it  fasted  one  day  after  the  days 
of  Purim.  *But  while  the  compiler  of  Sopherim  must  have  known  of  the 
Fast  of  Esther  on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar,  as  explained,  in  the  Talmudic 
period,  there  is  no  allusion  either  to  the  fast  of  three  days,  or  to  the 
thirteenth  of  Adar  as  the  Fast  of  Esther,  or  to  the  fast  after  Purim.  Thus 
the  Rabbis  of  the  Talmud  did  not  see  in  Dnpytl  JTlDlifn  a  reference  to 

the  establishment  of  fast  days  in  memory  of  the  fastings  of  Esther,  and  such 
an  interpretation  is  post-Talmudic. 

Megillah  Babli,  2*^.  ' 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  285 

the  Jews  of  Susa  and  of  the  provinces  assembled  themselves 
together  for  the  purpose  of  defending  themselves  against 
their  enemies,  and  therefore  it  is  obvious  that  the  Book 
of  Esther  may  be  read  on  that  day.  Furthermore,  if  the 
Fast  of  Esther  had  been  known  and  observed  in  the 
Talmudic  period,  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  Rabbis 
would  not  have  merely  alluded  to  it  in  that  passage,  but 
would  have  dwelt  on  it  in  the  Tractate  of  Megillah^  and 
further  would  have  distinctly  numbered  it  among  the  Fast 
Days  in  the  Tractate  of  TcHa^iith.  Notwithstanding  this 
obvious  fact,  it  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  conserva¬ 
tive  and  modern  commentators  that  the  terms  ‘  the  matters 
of  fastings  and  their  cry  ’,  refer  to  the  institution  of  the 
Fast  of  Esther.^®  This  interpretation,  however,  is  by  no 
means  of  recent  date,  as  the  same  opinion  was  current 
among  mediaeval  commentators,  as  stated  by  I  bn  Ezra  in 
his  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Esther.®^  That  this 
passage,  is  indeed,  obscure  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that 
even  the  Greek  translator  could  not  understand  its  meaning 
and  therefore  tried  to  emend  the  text.^^  Another  interpre- 

Siegfried,  Wildeboer,  &c. 

This  was  according  to  Ibn  Ezra  the  current  view  among  the  mediaeval 
commentators  ("iriDX  n'jyn  nv  bv  d'3")  njn  bv  niDii‘n  ^121).  He, 
however,  does  not  believe  that  the  Sopherim  had  established  this  fast, 
saying:  inSH  DV  mjynn  DV  )V2p  ‘According to  my 

opinion,  our  Sages  established  a  fast  day  as  a  day  of  fear  ’,  that  is  to  say, 
this  would  not  be  true  of  the  Fast  of  Esther  commemorating  the  deliverance 
of  Israel. 

The  Greek  version  reads :  mra  ttjs  vyie'ias  kavrwv  Kai  t^v  PovXrjv 
avTOju.  As  far  as  the  second  part  of  this  passage  is  concerned,  it  may 
correspond  to  Hebrew  for  original  Onpyil.  But  it  would  be 

difficult  to  conceive  that  should  have  been  misread  to  render  the 

meaning  ‘  according  to  their  healthy  state Jahn’s  rendering  niPlVn 
DnvyS  is  of  course  out  of  consideration.  Now  fllONn  may 

well  have  been  an  erroneous  reading  for  Dripytl  HlOifn  ""131.  If  so,  and 


286  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


tation,  quoted  by  Ibn  Ezra,  that  our  passage  refers  to  the 
three  days  in  which  Esther  and  the  Jews  of  Susa  had 
fasted,  and  it  means  that  the  Jews  had  ordained  upon 
themselves  and  their  seed  to  do  the  same,  and  to  fast  on 
those  days,  is  certainly  beyond  all  consideration.  On  the 
one  hand,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  the  Jews  should 
have  decreed  for  themselves  and  their  descendants  to  fast 
three  days  consecutively.  Such  an  ordinance  would  surely 
fall  under  those  which  the  Rabbis  designated  ‘  ordinances 
for  which  the  people  at  large  would  not  stand  ’  nn'’n 

nnn  nmn  nn),  and  considered  illegal,  and  we 

may  surely  credit  the  Jews  of  that  period  with  so  much 
good  sense  as  not  to  have  ordained  anything  of  that  sort.®^ 
On  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  stand  to  reason  that  the 
Jews  of  that  period  should  have  changed  the  first  two  days 
of  Passover  into  fast-days.  To  be  sure,  there  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  have  transferred  these  fast-days  to 
some  other  date  so  as  not  to  collide  with  the  Festival 

considering  that  the  translator  relied  upon  his  memory  in  making  his  trans¬ 
lation,  may  we  not  venture  to  suggest  that  he  read  DDifyiD  riDNI 
and  that  the  original  Greek  reading  was  Kara  rrjs  vjLe'ias  Kal  rrjs  dXrjOeias 
kavTojv  KoX  T^v  l3ov\^v  auTo/j/?  The  rendering  of  in  the  meaning  of 

‘health  ’  with  vyiaa  is  very  probable,  but  it  does  not  stand  to  reason  that  the 
translator  misread  for  nten. 

62  This  interpretation  is  by  Ibn  Ezra  ascribed  to  the  Karaites,  saying: 

^53*1  nain  nin^n  d'd*'  bv 

p  niDynn^)  pn^^n  ‘  And  the  Disbelievers  are  saying  that  the  passage  refers 
to  the  three  days  which  they  fasted  in  Nisan,  and  therefore  all  Israelites 
ought  to  fast  in  the  same  way  forever’.  But  it  seems  that  the  same 
interpretation  was  held  by  some  of  the  Rabbis,  and  not  only  by  the 
Karaites,  as  seen  in  the  Tractate  of  Sopherim,  quoted  note  57.  However, 
as  in  other  matters  so  also  on  this  point,  the  Rabbinical  interpretation  was 
more  rational  than  that  of  the  Karaites,  which  required  to  fast  three  days 
consecutively,  while  the  former  was  satisfied  with  the  fasts  of  three 
separate  days. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  287 

of  Passover,  and  they  might  have  established  only  one 
fast-day  commemorative  of  the  fast  of  Susa.  But,  if  this 
fast-day  is  not  identical  with  the  Fast  of  Esther,  it  would 
seem  strange  that  it  entirely  disappeared  without  having 
left  any  vestige  behind  it  in  the  Talmudic  period.  Thus,  if 
we  do  not  want  to  assume  with  the  Greek  translator  that 
our  text  is  corrupt,  there  is  no  other  way  out  of  this 
difficulty  than  to  see  in  our  statement  a  reference  to  the 
Four  Fast-Days.  This  is,  indeed,  Ibn  Ezra’s  own  interpre¬ 
tation  of  our  passage,  saying :  ‘  The  matters  of  fastings 
refer  to  the  Fast- Days  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Zechariah, 
and  our  passage  means  to  say  that  the  Jews  should  ordain 
upon  themselves  to  rejoice  in  the  days  of  Purim  just  as 
they  had  ordained  for  themselves  to  fast  in  their  days 
of  mourning,  when  the  City  was  taken  and  the  Temple 
was  burned,  since  no  prophet  did  command  them  to  fast’.®^ 
However,  if  the  Festival  of  Purim  had  been  established  by 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  Israel,  and  they  surely  had  no  less 
authority  to  issue  ordinances  than  the  former  prophets, 
there  was  no  need  for  referring  to  a  precedent  to  authorize 
the  establishment  of  this  festival.  Thus,  our  statement  in 
the  light  of  this  interpretation  bears  out  the  contention 
that  the  Sopherim  actually  refused  to  have  anything  to  do 
with  the  introduction  of  this  festival,  and  shows  further 
that  Mordecai  and  Esther  did  not  have  any  authority  for 
introducing  any  religious  festival.  But  the  Jewish  people 
themselves  could  not  be  prevented  from  accepting  it 
voluntarily  by  common  consent.  The  question  now  arose, 
whether  the  people  themselves  possessed  the  authority  for 

G5  Ibn  Ezra:  ])j2ri2  nn^T  nson  bv  nnn 

ni:j;nn^  ■’D'n  'd  dvdiTi  naoi 

n'yn  nyp3j  'd'3 


288  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


imposing  the  observance  of  this  festival  upon  future  genera¬ 
tions.  This  question  is  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and 
the  action  of  the  people  in  this  matter  is  justified  by  a 
precedent :  It  was  not  for  the  first  time  that  the  people 
by  common  consent  imposed  observances  that  had  been 
recognized  as  legal  and  binding  for  later  generations. 
Ibn  Ezra  is  certainly  correct  in  declaring  that  the  four  Fast- 
Days  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Zechariah  had  not  been 
instituted  by  the  prophets.  When,  after  the  return  from 
the  captivity,  this  prophet  was  asked  :  ‘  Should  I  weep  in 
the  fifth  month,  separating  myself,  as  I  have  done  these 
so  many  years  ?  ’  His  answer  was  :  ‘  When  ye  fasted  and 
mourned  in  the  fifth  and  in  the  seventh  month,  even  these 
seventy  years,  did  ye  at  all  fast  unto  Me,  even  to  Me  ? 
And  when  ye  eat,  and  when  ye  drink,  are  ye  not  they  that 
eat,  and  they  that  drink  Now  there  is  no  room  for 

doubt  that  the  prophet  would  have  treated  these  institutions 
of  fasting  with  greater  reverence,  if  they  had  been  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  prophets.  But  they  had  been  established  by 
the  people  themselves  without  consulting  the  prophets  of 
that  period.  And  it  is,  indeed,  doubtful  whether  the 
prophets  would  have  given  their  consent  to  the  introduction 
of  these  fast-days,  as  also  in  pre-exilic  times  Israel  observed 
fast-days,  which  were  by  no  means  conducive  to  real 
repentance  and  did  not  have  any  influence  upon  the  moral 

condition  of  the  people.®^  We  may  perhaps  suggest  that 

•» 

Zechariah  7.  3-6.  See  Ibn  Ezra,  a.  L,  who  explains 
nrn  inin  nitryb*  'JN'  njm  ‘  Behold  I  have  not  commanded 

you  this  thing  sin  HDI  ‘  and  who  is  he  who 

prophesied  upon  my  command  to  fast  ?’  So  also  David  Kimhi :  ‘’iNH 

ni3vnnb  ddhn  ‘  Did  I  command  you  to  fast?  ’ 

We  find  even  queen  Jezebel  proclaiming  a  fast  (i  Kings  21.  9),  and  such 
fasts  seemed  to  have  been  customary  even  among  idolators.  See  alsoj er.  36. 9. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  289 

I 

the  establishment  of  these  fast-days  was  not  for  the  purpose 
of  repentance,  but  for  keeping  in  the  mind  of  the  exiles 
the  national  consciousness  and  the  remembrance  of  their 
country,  and  thus  were  scarcely  of  religious  significance. 

Thus,  being  merely  national  institutions,  they  could  not 
have  any  influence  on  the  religious  conceptions  of  the 
people,  and  the  prophets  could  neither  lend  their  authority 
for  their  establishment  nor  look  with  special  favour  upon 
their  observance*  But,  when  the  idea  of  a  Jewish  nationality  j 
gave  way  to  that  of  a  Jewish  religious  community,  as 
pointed  out  in  Chapter  V,  the  fast-days,  originally  national, 
assumed  likewise  a  religious  character,  and  therefore  their 
establishment  was  recognized  as  binding  for  future  genera¬ 
tions.  The  recognition  of  their  establishment,  whatever 
the  reason  for  its  validity  may  have  been,  established  a 
precedent  for  the  people  to  impose  the  Festival  of  Purim 
on  later  generations  without  or  against  the  consent  of  the 
Sopherim. 

However,  though  the  Jewish  people  at  large  had  volun-  Esther  n. 

32. 

tarily  established  the  Festival  of  Purim  against  the  consent 
of  the  Sopherim,  it  stands  to  reason  that  there  were  still 
a  good  many  who  for  religious  reasons  refused  to  recognize 
its  validity  and  ignored  this  festival.  The  conduct  of  the 
minority  frustrated  the  main  purpose  of  this  festival  to 
be  a  safeguard  against  future  persecutions,  and  the  majority 
of  the  Jews  had  no  legal  right  for  coercing  their  co¬ 
religionists  to  their  will.  This  festival  had  to  be  confirmed 
by  a  royal  decree.  For  this  reason  ‘The  decree  of  Esther 
confirmed  these  matters  of  Purim’.  Now  Esther,  whatever 
her  rank  may  have  been,  could  not  have  possessed  any 
authority  for  issuing  decrees  in  her  own  name.  A  decree 
was  binding  only  if  ‘  written  in  the  king’s  name  and  sealed 
II.  U 


290  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


with  the  king’s  ring’.  But  this  she  could  not  have  done 
without  obtaining  the  king^s  consent.  This  she  surely 
did,  and  the  king  could  n^  but  pleased  with  Esther’s 
request  to  impose  upon  the  Jews  the  celebration  of  the 
fourteenth  of  Adar  which  was  the  day  of  the  Persian 
festival,  and  authorized  her  to  issue  a  royal  decree  to  that 
effect.®® 

Esther  having  issued  the  decree,  ‘  it  was  written  in  the 
book  ’.  This  statement  is  not  quite  clear.  The  term  "IDD 
in  our  narrative  means  either  ‘  letter  ’  or  ‘  book  ’.  The 
former  meaning  is  scarcely  conceivable,  as  a  statement 
that  Esther’s  decree  was  sent  out  in  the  form  of  a  letter 
would  be  gratuitous ;  and  it  surely  cannot  mean  that 
Esther  confirmed  the  matters  of  Purim  orally,  and  after¬ 
wards  her  command  was  written  down  in  a  letter,  as  an 
oral  command  would  not  be  legally  binding,  as  already 
pointed  out,  unless  ‘  written  in  the  king’s  name  and  sealed 
with  the  king’s  ring’.  But  the  latter  meaning  would  be 
likewise  difficult,  as  our  statement  cannot  mean  to  say  that 
‘  the  matters  of  Purim  ’  nn)  were  written  down  in 

a  book,  since  it  would  be  grammatically  incorrect.  Nor 
can  it  mean  that  the  decree  of  Esther  contained  the  whole 

Thus  the  Festival  of  Purim  would  be  in  this  respect  similar  to  all  the 
Biblical  laws  which  had  been  made  obligatory  upon  the  Jews  by  a  royal 
decree  of  Artaxerxes  given  to  Ezra  (Ezra  7.  25,  26).  Now  it  has  been 
pointed  out  in  chapter  VII,  note  59,  that  there  are  good  reasons  for  the 
assumption  that  Ezra  was  a  contemporary  of  Mordecai,  and  not  of  Nehemiah, 
and  if  so,  the  same  king  Artaxerxes  II  confirmed  by  a  royal  decree  both  the 
Biblical  laws  and  the  Festival  of  Purim.  Ibn  Ezra  expressed  a  similar 
opinion  concerning  the  necessity  of  confirming  this  Festival  by  a  royal 
decree,  saying :  p  “IHNI  HimT  HNl  m'':n  PINT  nDrU 

'131  ‘This  passage  indicates  that  Israel  had  observed  this  command¬ 

ment,  but  afterwards  gave  it  up,  and  therefore  Mordecai  was  in  need  of 
Esther  that  she  should  write  letters  concerning  it  as  queen’. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  291 

story  of  the  origin  of  Purim  and  this  was  written  in  a 
book,  as  the  copies  of  Esther’s  decree  sent  out  everywhere 
would  be  sufficient  for  this  purpose,  and  such  a  state¬ 
ment  would  be  superfluous.  The  old  interpretation  that 
this  statement  refers  to  the  present  Book  of  Esther, is, 
of  course,  impossible,  since  it  intrinsically  shows  that  it  was 
not  compiled  during  the  life-time  of  Esther,  as  we  shall 
further  see.  However,  our  statement  may  refer  to  a  certain 
book  in  the  archives  where  Esther’s  decree  was  recorded, 
and  due  to  this  fact  the  Festival  of  Purim  was  imposed 
upon  the  Jews  as  a  Persian  law  for  future  times.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  translator 
who  rendered  “naDZt  iriDJI  into  Kai  eypdcfyr]  eh  pvrjiioa'vi'oy, 

‘  and  it  was  written  as  a  memorial  ’,  which  may  mean  that 
it  was  recorded  in  ‘the  Book  of  Records’  “iDD  = 

ypdfxfiara  pi'rjp.oavua). 

Due  to  the  current  identification  of  the  king  of  our  Esther 
narrative  with  Xerxes,  the  statement  that  ‘  the  king 
Ahasuerus  laid  tribute  upon  the  land  and  upon  the  isles 
of  the  sea’,  appeared  to  all  modern  commentators  as  a 
trivial  remark  which  evidently  has  not  the  least  connexion 
with  the  preceding  events.  Yet  the  author  must  have  well 
known^  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  thus  this  statement 
must  be  closely  connected  with  Mordecai’s  elevation  to  the 
rank  of  grand  vizier.  This  passage  is,  indeed,  one  of  the 
proofs  against  the  identification  of  Ahasuerus  of  our  story 
with  Xerxes,  as  pointed  out  in  the  third  chapter.  I  bn 


So  Rashi  and  the  current  Rabbinical  interpretation.  Raton’s  reference 
to  Exod.  17.  14  ;  Numb.  5.  25  ;  Job  19.  23,  to  show  that  "1£)D3  3113^  merely 
means  :  ‘it  was  committed  to  writing’,  does  not  help  us  in  explaining  this 
statement,  since  Esther’s  command  was  already  committed  to  writing  as 
a  decree. 

U  2 


292  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


Ezra  is  the  only  commentator  who  clearly  perceived  that 
our  narrative  could  not  have  meant  to  state  that  the  king^ 
laid  tribute  upon  the  dominions  which  formed  a  part  of 
the  Persian  empire  long  ago,  but  on  those  which  were 
recently  conquered.  This  interpretation  is,  no  doubt,  correct. 
But  if  the  king  of  our  story  should  be  identified  with 
Xerxes,  this  statement  would  not  be  true,  as  from  the 
pages  of  history  we  know  that  Xerxes  did  by  no  means 
increase  his  empire  by  new  conquests.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  our  statement  is  true,  the  current  identification  of  our 
story  must  be  wrong. 

Now  according  to  the  principle  of  justice,  a  good  action 
deserves  a  reward.  No  story  is  complete  in  which  this 
principle  is  ignored.  In  reviewing  the  persons  who  played 
the  principal  parts  in  our  narrative,  we  find  that  Haman 
received  his  due  for  his  crime  against  the  Jews,  Mordecai 
was  rewarded  in  being  elevated  to  the  rank  of  a  grand 
vizier,  and  Esther  for  her  efforts  in  behalf  of  her  people 
ruled  supreme  as  queen.  But  after  all,  the  main  factor 
in  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  was  the  king,  and  in  what 
manner  was  he  rewarded  ?  Therefore,  our  narrative  informs 
us  that  the  king  did  not  remain  without  a  reward  either. 
Mordecai’s  elevation  was  to  his  royal  master’s  advantage, 
as  he  was  a  very  able  statesman  and  conducted  the  affairs 
of  the  empire  in  a  masterly  fashion.  Due  to  his  diplomatic 
skill,  the  sea-land  and  the  isles  of  the  sea,  that  is  to  say, 
the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor  and  its  islands,  which 
Xerxes,  the  great-grandfather  of  Artaxerxes  II,  had  lost 
about  eighty  years  ago,  again  became  tributary  to  the 
Persian  empire.  This  event,  the  greatest  achievement  in 
the  Persian  period,  occurred  in  the  year  387  B.  c.  E.,  five 
years  after  the  events  narrated  in  the  Book  of  Plsther,  thus 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  293 

at  the  time  when  Mordecai  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Persian 
government.  In  accordance  with  this  interpretation,  we 
propose  to  read  D'n  pN  ‘  land  and  the  isles  of  the  sea 
The  geographical  term  DNI  corresponding  to  cuneiform 
M dt-tainttin^  ‘  Sealand  \  refers  only  to  the  Greek  cities 
situated  at  the  seaboard,  as  those  situated  in  the  interior 
of  Asia  Minor  were  in  all  probability  subjected  before  the 
Peace  of  Antalcidas.®^  In  dealing  with  events  under  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  II,  though  not  intending  to  deal  with 
Persian  history,  the  author  could  not ‘have  omitted  to 
mention  the  most  important  event  in  the  Persian  history 
that  occurred  under  the  reign  of  this  king,  especially  as 
this  achievement  redounded  to  the  glory  of  Mordecai  who 
as  first  minister  conducted  the  negotiations  with  the  Greek 
ambassadors.  If  the  author  had  not  referred  to  this  event, 
we  might  have  reason  to  doubt  whether  he  was  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  historical  events  of  that  period,  and 
thus  question  his  reliability  concerning  other  statements. 

Thus,  the  passage  under  discussion  is  far  from  being  a  trivial 
remark,  but  on  the  contrary  of  signal  importance,  as  it 
bears  testimony  to  both  the  identity  of  the  king  of  our 
narrative  and  to  the  author’s  thorough  acquaintance  with 
the  historical  events  of  the  period  of  Artaxerxes  II.  If, 
however,  the  author  had  meant  to  say  that  the  king  laid 
tribute  upon  all  dominions  of  his  empire  indiscriminately, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  would  have  said 

bv  DD  ‘and  the  king  Ahasuerus 

laid  a  tribute  upon  all  the  provinces  of  his  kingdom’. 

Having  pointed  out  one  signal  success  of  Mordecai  as  Esther  10. 
grand  vizier  of  the  king,  the  author  goes  on  to  say  that 
he  was  likewise  successful  in  all  his  acts  which,  however, 

See  ed.  Meyer,  G.  A.,  Ill,  pp.  191  ff. 


294  the  book  of  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 


have  no  connexion  with  our  narrative,  and  can  be  found 
recorded  in  the  Persian  historical  annals,  saying  :  ‘  And  all 
the  acts  of  his  power  and  of  his  might,  and  the  account 
of  the  greatness  of  Mordecai,  how  the  king  advanced 
him,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  chronicles 
of  the  kings  of  Media  and  Persia  ?  ’  The  term  which 

literally  means  ‘interpretation,  explanation’,  used  in  this 
connexion,  is  of  special  significance.  Our  author  does  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  greatness  of  Mordecai  is  recorded 
in  the  royal  chronicles.  He  was  a  real  historian,  and  he 
well  knew  that  the  royal  chronicles  could  not  dwell  on 
the  merits  of  a  minister  who  was,  after  all,  merely  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  his  royal  master,  even  if  he  had 
been  one  of  the  highest  grandees,  as  such  special  praise 
would  overshadow  the  glory  of  the  king,  and  deprive  him 
of  all  credit  for  the  signal  achievements  of  his  reign.  If 
Mordecai’s  name  was  mentioned  there  at  all,  it  could  only 
have  been  incidentally  in  connexion  with  achievements  of 
the  king.  Now  it  would  be  a  truism  to  say  that  glorious 
deeds  of  many  kings  on  which  their  fame  rests  were  not 
due  to  their  own  personality  but  to  that  of  their  ministers. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  king  of  our  narrative,  who 
was  weak,  capricious,  readily  accessible  to  personal  influ¬ 
ences,  and  dependent  upon  his  favourites.  His  achievements 
during  the  period  in  which  Mordecai  served  as  his  grand 
vizier,  if  rightly  interpreted^  testified  to  the  greatness  of 
the  latter.  Furthermore,  many  of  the  events  recorded  in 
this  narrative  seem  obscure  and  unexplainable  if  we  do  not 
know  the  historical  events  of  that  period.  Our  author  was 
well  aware  of  this  fact.  However,  he  could  not  refer  to 
the  conflict  between  the  Persian  and  Jewish  religions,  the 
real  background  of  those  events  which  brought  about 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  295 

Mordecai’s  elevation.  Therefore,  he  states  that  ‘  the 
explanation  for  the  greatness  of  Mordecai  ’  can  be  found 
in  the  royal  chronicles  which  deal  with  the  historical 
happenings  of  that  period.®^ 

The  eulogy  of  Mordecai  in  this  passage  is  in  itself 
a  sufficient  proof  that  the  Book  of  Esther,  in  the  present 
form  at  least,  could  not  have  been  written  during  his 
lifetime.  The  present  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were 
not  written  by  these  men  to  whom  they  are  traditionally 
ascribed,  but  were  compiled  from  their  records.  And  the 
same  holds  true,  to  a  certain  extent,  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 
The  original  documents  underlying  our  narrative  were  the 
letters  sent  out  by  Mordecai,  and  the  decree  of  Esther. 
In  these  letters  Mordecai  had  given  an  account  of  those 
events,  without  referring,  of  course,  to  the  main  conflict  at 
the  bottom  of  the  danger  impending  over  the  Jews.  This 
account,  being  in  the  style  of  a  letter,  in  which  most 
probably,  like  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Mordecai  spoke  in  the 
first  person,  as  already  suggested  above,  was  called  ‘The 
Letter  of  Purim  ’  (onian  n“i3N).  This  document,  but  for 
the  main  event,  had  not  the  least  resemblance  to  our 
present  narrative,'^^  which  is  not  written  in  the  style  of 

The  same  term  occurs  also  IV,  7,  in  the  passage  ?]D3n 

which  can  scarcely  mean  ‘  the  exact  sum  as  generally 
explained  by  the  commentators,  but  is  also  here  to  be  taken  in  the  meaning 
of  ‘  explanation  ^  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  Mordecai’s  intention  was  to 
impress  upon  Esther  the  significance  of  Haman’s  offer :  the  property  of  the 
Jews  being  given  to  their  adversaries,  Haman  was  sure  of  accomplishing 
his  purpose. 

In  this  letter  there  was  no  need  to  inform  them  concerning  the 
personalities  of  Ahasuerus,  Mordecai,  and  Esther,  and  the  story  of  Vashti 
was  quite  unnecessary.  Even  assuming  that  these  matters  were  mentioned 
in  the  letter,  since  it  was  intended  as  a  record  for  future  generations,  which 
does  not  seem  probable,  the  second  part  of  the  ninth  chapter  could  certainly 
not  have  been  written  by  Mordecai  himself. 


296  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

a  letter.  The  compilers  of  our  narrative  lived  in  all  pro¬ 
bability  toward  the  end  of  the  Achaemenian  period,  as 
already  mentioned  above,  yet  at  a  time  when  the  characters 
of  Mordecai  and  Esther,  and  all  those  events  were  still 
well  known.  Who  knows  whether  the  persecutions  the 
Jews  underwent  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  III,  the 
cruel  successor  of  Artaxerxes  II,  which  were  evidently 
due  to  the  resurrection  of  the  decree  concerning  the  worship 

t 

of  Anahita,  and  the  experiences  that  the  institution  of 
Purim  actually  minimized  the  danger  to  the  Jews  at  that 
period,  did  not  incline  the  Sopherim  toward  a  more  lenient 
attitude  in  respect  to  this  festival  ?  But  if  so,  the  necessity 
of  sanctioning  it  and  giving  it  a  religious  character  became 
of  paramount  importance.  Furthermore,  the  reference  to 
the  Persian  chronicles  seems  to  indicate  that  our  narrative 
was  written  during  the  Persian  period. For  after  the 
passing  of  the  Achaemenian  dynasty,  the  Persian  annals 
do  not  seem  to  have  existed  any  longer,  as  historians 
would  have  quoted  them  if  they  had  still  existed.  The 
statement  of  the  Zend-Avesta,  that  the  Persian  books 
had  been  destroyed  by  Alexander  the  Great,  is  certainly 
well  founded, as  these  records  having  been  written  on 

Paton’s  view  that  the  author  is  probably  thinking  of  some  Jewish 
History  that  gave  from  a  Jewish  point  of  view  the  history  of  the  kings  of 
Media  and  Persia  (p.  304),  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously. 

"^2  Cf.  Jackson,  Zoroaster^  p.  134,  and  Zend-Avesta^  p.  xxxii. 

Though  this  statement  refers  only  to  the  Sacred  Books,  the  same  is  true  of 
the  Persian  archives.  Alexander  may  or  may  not  have  intended  to  destroy 
the  Persian  library.  He  was  too  strongly  imbued  with  the  Greek  conceit 
to  give  any  attention  to  the  books  of  the  barbarians.  But  he  surely  intended 
to  destroy  the  Persian  royal,  residences  as  retribution  for  the  destruction 
of  Greek  cities  and  temples  in  the  campaigns  of  Darius  and  Xerxes.  And 
in  these  conflagrations,  the  Persian  archives  could  not  escape  destruction. 
The  only  Persian  records  that  survived  were  those  engraved  on  stone. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  297 


a  perishable  material  could  not  have  escaped  destruction 
when  this  king  burned  down  Persepolis,  Ecbatana,  and 
other  Persian  capitals. 

However,  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful  whether  the  name 
of  Mordecai  ever  occurred  in  the  Persian  annals,  as  there 
is  scarcely  room  for  doubt  that  among  the  Persians  he 
had  a  pure  Persian  name.  While  the  Jews  of  the  Persian 
period  knew  the  Persian  name  of  the  Jewish  grand  vizier 
who  played  such  a  signal  part  in  their  deliverance,  and 
thus  could  identify  his  name  in  the  Persian  annals,  for 
later  generations  such  an  identification  was  nigh  impossible. 
The  Greeks  who  conducted  negotiations  with  Mordecai 
had  not  the  least  notion  that  he  was  not  a  native  Persian. 
It  is  even  rather  doubtful  whether  the  very  existence  of 
a  Jewish  people  was  known  to  them,  though  some  learned 
Greek  traveller  may  have  made  their  acquaintance  about 
that  period. But  the  fact  that  we  do  not  know  Mordecai’s 

According  to  Clearchus  of  Soli,  the  disciple  of  Aristotle,  the  latter  had 
met  a  Jew  concerning  whom  he  said  :  ‘The  man  was  by  race  a  Jew  out  of 
Coele-Syria.  His  people  are  descendants  of  the  Indian  philosophers.  It  is 
reported  that  philosophers  are  called  Calani  among  the  Indians,  and  Jews 
among  the  Syrians.  The  Jews  take  their  name  from  their  place  of  abode 
which  is  called  Judaea.  The  name  of  their  city  is  very  difficult;  they  call 
it  Hierusaleme.  This  man,  then,  having  been  a  guest  in  many  homes,  and 
having  come  down  gradually  from  the  highlands  to  the  sea-coast,  was 
Hellenic  not  only  in  speech  but  also  in  soul.  And  as  we  were  staying 
in  Asia  at  the  time,  the  man  cast  up  at  the  same  place  and  interviewed 
us  and  other  scholars.  But  inasmuch  as  he  had  come  to  be  at  home  with 
cultured  persons  he  imparted  more  than  he  received’  (Josephus  contra 
Apionem,  I,  22,  179).  Megasthenes  also  describes  the  Jews  as  the  philo¬ 
sophers  of  Syria  (e^a;  'EA.Ad5os  cpiXocrocpovvTC^'),  and  compares  them  with 
the  Brahmins  in  India  (Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Stromata  I,  15,  72).  Hart 
in  his  article  ‘Jews’,  Encyclop.  Brit.,  observes  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  probability  or  even  accuracy  of  the  narrative  of  Clearchus.  These 
ideas  concerning  Judaism  dating  from  a  period  when  the  Greeks  had  already 
come  in  contact  with  the  Jews,  after  the  downfall  of  the  Persian  empire. 


298  THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY 

Persian  name,  and  we  are  thus  unable  to  identify  him  with 
a  certain  Persian  grandee  whose  name  may  be  known,  does 
not  cast  any  doubt  upon  our  author’s  statement  that  he 
played  so  important  a  part  in  the  Persian  history.  We 
may  point  out  the  fact  that  tradition  is  vague  and  contra¬ 
dictory  concerning  the  real  names  of  Smerdis  and  Pseudo- 
Smerdis,  though  their  historical  characters  are  beyond  any 
shadow  of  doubt.  The  former  is  called  by  Darius,  in  his 
Behistun-Inscription,  Bardya^^  the  latter  Gaumata ;  both 
in  Babylonian  Barzia^^  by  Aeschylus,  Mardus'^^  by  Hero¬ 
dotus,  Smerdis ;  the  former  is  called  by  Xenophon 
and  Ctesias^^  Tanyoxarces^  by  Justin  Oropastes  \  the 
latter  by  Ctesias  Sphejidadates,  The  same  may  hold  true 
of  the  names  of  Mordecai,  Esther,  and  Haman. 

Esther  10.  The  eulogy  of  Mordecai  is  fully  in  agreement  with  our 
conception  of  his  character.  He  was  pre-eminently  a  man 
of  peace.  This  principle  governed  his  whole  life.  Peace 
with  all  the  world  he  considered  the  acme  of  human 
felicity.  This  thought  he  expressed  in  his  Letter  of  Purim  : 
‘Words  of  Peace  and  Truth’.  Peace  was  his  first  con¬ 
sideration  when  the  latter  was  not  contrary  to  the  principle 
of  Truth.  But  as  soon  as  these  two  principles  came  into 

leave  no  room  for  doubt,  that  as  a  rule,  the  Greeks  of  the  first  half  of 
the  fourth  century  b.c,  e.  knew  almost  nothing  about  the  Jews. 

Behistun-Inscription,  Col.  10. 

Ibid,,  Col.  I,  II. 

See  Talquist,  Neubabylom'sc/ies  Namenbuch, 

Aeschylus,  Persae  774  Trt/xTrros  Se  MapSos  aiaxtvr]  ircLTpa.  This  • 

Greek  poet,  born  525  b.c.  e.,  was  actually  a  younger  contemporary  of 
Pseudo-Smerdis. 

Herodotus,  III,  61,  &c. 

Xenophon,  Cyropaedia,  VIII,  7. 

Ctesias,  Persica,  8-13.  For  the  name  Sphendadata  of  the  usurper  see 
chapter  VI,  note  26. 

Justini  Historia,  1,9. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY  299 

collision,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  his  own  happiness 
for  the  sake  of  truth,  as  he  did  in  his  conflict  with  Haman. 
Though  not  having  been  in  sympathy  with  the  zeal  of  the 
strict  adherents  of  the  Jewish  religion,  nevertheless  he  was 
willing  to  expose  his  own  life  for  their  sake,  and  fully 
identified  himself  with  his  brethren  who  sacrificed  them¬ 
selves  for  the  truth  of  their  religion.  The  establishment 
of  the  Festival  of  Purim  commemorating  the  deliverance  of 
the  Jews  from  Haman’s  decree,  though  ostensibly  identical 
with  the  Persian  New  Year  Festival,  was  principally  due 
to  his  desire  of  avoiding  friction  with  the  Gentiles,  and  to 
maintain  both  Peace  and  Truth.  He  certainly  was  solicitous 
for  the  welfare  of  his  people,  and  aimed  to  safeguard  their 
existence,  and  to  insure  for  them  the  blessing  of  peace. 
This  is,  indeed,  the  ideal  of  Israel,  as  the  Psalmist  expressed 
himself :  ‘The  Lord  will  give  strength  unto  His  people; 
the  Lord  will  bless  His  people  with  peace’  (Ps.  29.  ii). 
Peace  was  the  theme  on  which  Mordecai  dwelt,  and  which 
he  recommended  to  his  descendants  as  the  highest  good : 
‘  He  was  seeking  the  good  of  his  people  and  speaking 
Peace  to  all  his  seed 


GENERAL  INDEX 


I 


Abdi-Nabu  (=  Abednego),  i88. 
Abednego,  ibid. 

Abihail  (Esther’s  father),  io6,  277. 
Abnu  {=  piir),  163. 

Aboe  (temple  at),  39. 

Abraham,  104,  172,  188,  189. 
Achaemenian,  Achaemenides,  50, 
74,  7S,  76,  77,  98, 122, 128,  231, 

235,  296. 

Adad  (deity),  92. 

Adar  (month  of),  165,  168,  169, 
179,  232,  244,  254,  259,  261, 
274. 

Adiabene,  157. 

Aeschylus,  70,  298. 

Africanus,  Julius,  7. 

Afrudsha  (pr.  n.),  70. 

Agag  (king  of  Amalek),  21-4. 
Agagite,  21,  24,  26. 

Agesilaus  (king  of  Sparta),  52, 

236. 

Aghrimat-teira  (pr.  n.),  70. 
Ahriman  (god  of  darkness),  37. 
Ahuramazda  (supreme  Persian 
god),  39j  70,  98-101,  118,  120, 


124,  126,  138,  143,  238,  249. 


127. 

Al-Beruni,  166,  167,  283. 
Alexander  the  Great,  75,  234,  296; 


son  of  Amyntas  of  Macedonia, 
62,  1 5 1. 

Alexandria,  260,  261. 

Alexandrian  Age,  13,  107. 

All  Souls’  Feast,  167. 


Altorientalische  Forschungen  (H. 

Winckler),  82,  165. 
Altpersische  Keilinschriften 
j  (Weissbach  und  Bang),  119. 

I  Amalek,  112. 

I  Amalekite,  21,  24,  25,  29. 

Amarna  (Letters  of),  26. 

Amasis  (king  of  Egypt),  69. 
Amestris  (wife  of  Xerxes  I),  30, 
34,  62,  100,  200. 

(daughter  of  Darius  II),  232. 
(daughter  of  Artaxerxes  II),49. 
(wife  of  Artaxerxes  II  = 
Esther?),  50. 

Amirchvand  (pr.  n.),  70. 

I  A7n-ma-an-ka-si-bar  (Elamitic 
I  deity),  28. 

Ammonites,  24. 

Amphictyonic  Council,  121. 
Ai7ishaspands  (=  angels),  99. 
A77iurru  (Clay),  90. 

Amyntas  (king  of  Macedonia),  62, 
151. 

I  Anabasis  (Xenophon),  57. 

1  ATtadates  (sanctuary  of),  129. 
Anahita  (the  highest  among  the 
A77is/iaspa77ds),  her  images 
erected  in  all  centres  of  the 
Persian  empire,  119-20,  134; 
represented  as  manifestation  of 
Ahuramazda,  125-6;  her  wor¬ 
ship  made  compulsory  as  Persian 
law,  125-6;  its  spread,  127-9; 
refused  by  the  strictly  religious 
Jews,  130-2  ;  her  festivals,  133, 


302 


GENERAL  INDEX 


165-9  ;  erection  of  her  image 
in  Durilu  (centre  of  Anu  and 
Ishtar),  136-8 ;  incompatibility 
of  her  worship  with  the  Jewish 
creed,  159;  her  festival  the 
time  of  the  execution  ofHaman’s 
decree,  167-9;  synchronized 
with  the  day  of  the  deliverance 
of  the  Jews,  278-83. 

Anaitis  (=  Anahita),  46,  129. 

Ananikiam,  H.  M.,  99. 

Anat-Mylitta  (=  Anahita),  128. 

Anavim,  88. 

Angels  (identified  with  the 
Planets),  161. 

Anra-Mainyu  (=  Ahriman),  100, 

lOI. 

Antalcidas  (Peace  of),  42,  53,  293- 
Ante-dating,  56. 

Antiochia,  260. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  13,  36, 118, 
131,  159,  228. 

Antipater  (father  of  Herod  king 
of  Judea),  22. 

Antiquities  of  the  Jews  (Flavius), 
6,  7,  25,  157,  252. 

Afiu  (supreme  Babylonian  god), 
125,  138. 

Aphrodite  (=  Anahita),  126,  134, 

Apion  (Josephus  Contra  Apionem), 
133- 

Apocryphal  Additions  (to  .  the 
Book  of  Esther),  5,  6,  109. 

Apollo  (temple  of),  39. 

Apollodorus  (pr.  n.),  105. 

Apollonius  (pr.  n.),  105. 

Arad-Gula  (pr.  n.),  105. 

Arakiel  (angel),  162. 

Aramaic,  82,  188. 

Araynta  (niece  of  Xerxes  I),  200. 

Arabians,  249. 

Ardashir  (=  Artaxerxes,  founder 
of  the  Neo- Persian  empire),  52, 

141. 


Dirazdast  (  =  Artaxerxes  I), 
128). 

(=  Artaxerxes  II),  129. 

The  Kayan  (=  Artaxerxes  I), 

128. 

Ariaspes  (son  of  Artaxerxes  II),  49. 

Aristotle,  297. 

Armenia,  26,  99,  127,  167. 

Arrian,  75. 

Arsaces  (founder  of  the  Parthian 
empire),  75,  79. 

Mithridates  (conqueror  of 
Babylon),  76. 

(name  of  Artaxerxes  II 
before  his  accession),  78, 79. 

Arsacides  (Parthian  dynasty),  15, 
42,  50,  76,  163. 

Arses  (successor  of  Artaxerxes  III), 

75,  77. 

Arshu  (=  Arsaces,  Babyl.  name 
of  Artaxerxes  II),  77,  78. 

Arsicas  (=  Arsaces,  name  of 
Artaxerxes  II),  77,  78. 

Artashatr  (=  Neo-Persian  Arda¬ 
shir),  52. 

Artaxata  (temple  of  Anahita  at), 
127. 

Artaxerxes  I  Longimanus,  47,  51, 
77,  78,  80,  128,  129,  172; 
II  Mnemon  (=  Ahasuerus),  the 
description  of  his  life  by  Plu¬ 
tarch,  43-50  ;  his  character  and 
influence  on  Greek  affairs,  50-4  ; 
his  victory  over  his  brother 
Cyrus,  54-8 ;  his  domestic 
affairs,  58-73 ;  identical  with 
Ahasuerus,  73-4;  his  fictitious 
name  in  the  Hebrew  text,  74- 
80;  his  introduction  of  an¬ 
thropomorphic  images  into  the 
Zoroastrian  religion,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  worship  of 
Anahita  as  a  Persian  law,  119- 
30 ;  the  persecution  of  the  Jews 


GENERAL  INDEX 


303 


due  to  his  law,  130-8  ;  the  con¬ 
spiracy  against  his  life,  149- 
52 ;  his  conduct  under  the 
influence  of  wine,  215-7,  227. 

Ill  Ochus,  29,  77,  228,  236, 

.  279,281. 

Artemis  (=  Anahita),  125. 

Aryan,  28,  78. 

Ashur  (deity),  98. 

Ashurbanipal  (king  of  Assyria), 
28. 

Asia,  52,  180. 

Asia  Minor,  31,  41,  52,  53,  74,  180, 
228. 

Aspasia  (concubine  of  Cyrus  the 
Younger),  46-8,  149. 

Aspects  of  Religious  Belief  and 
Practice  (Jastrow),  160. 

Assyria,  91,  135. 

Assyrian  Personal  Names  (Tal- 
quist),  104, 

Assyrians,  91,  98,  135. 

Asifa  (element  in  Persian  proper 
names),  70. 

Astarte,  Astartes,  82,  92. 

Asta-teira  ( =  Washta-teira),  70. 

Astrologers,  161. 

Astrology  (=  idolatry),  160,  162. 

Astronomy,  16 1. 

Athenian,  39,  53. 

Athens,  52. 

Atossa  (wife  of  Darius  the  Great), 

32. 

(daughter  of  Artaxerxes  II), 
47,  49- 

(wife  of  Artaxerxes  II, 
identical  with  Hadassah?), 
50. 

(  =  Hutaosa  =  Hadassah  ?). 
106. 

Avesta(-Zend),  98,  99,  128,  129, 
163,  296. 

Azariah  (=  Abed-nego),  188. 

Azri-Jau  (king  of  Ja’udi,  82. 


Baal,  Baalim,  82,  92. 

Babylon,  Babylonia,  16,  38,  56, 
60,  76,  88,  90,  92,  97,  103,  105, 
io7j  134,  136-8. 

Babylonian  chronology,  56. 
Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Pennsylvania,  105. 
Babylonian  Pantheon,  121,  125  ; 

Babylonians,  135,  142. 

Bactria,  134,  180. 

Baeshat-teira  (pr.  n.),  70. 

Baga  (=  God),  23,  27. 

Baga-datha  (pr.  n.),  27. 

Bagaeaus  (pr.  n.),  23. 

Bagoan  (=  U!in),  23. 

Bagoi  {  =  ilAn),  27. 

Bagopates  (pr.  n.),  23. 

Bagophanes  (pr.  n.),  23. 

Bagosaces  (pr.  n.),  23. 

Bagoas  (prime  minister  of  Arta¬ 
xerxes  III),  23,  29. 

Balati-shar-usur  (=  Belteshaz- 

•  ' 

zar),  188. 

Baraitha,  164. 

Barakiel  (angel),  162. 

Bardya  (=  Smerdis),  298. 

Bar  Hebraeus  (Chronicle  of),  73, 

74. 

Barzia  (=  Smerdis),  298. 

Batten  (InternationalCommentary 
on  Ezra-Nehemiah),  170,  172. 
Behistun  Inscription,  29,  loi,  129, 
168,  173,  298. 

Bel  =  Marduk,  97. 

Belit-ilani  (=  Anahita),  125. 
Bel-shti?m  (—  104. 

Belteshazzar  (Chaldean  name  of 
Daniel),  188. 

Beltis  (=  Anahita),  134. 

Benjamin  (tribe  of),  18,  19. 
Benjamite,  16,  18,  21,  26. 

Berossus  (priest  of  Bel),  99,  1 19, 
128,  133. 

Bertheau,  E.,  10. 


304 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Bertheau-Ryssel  (Commentaries 
on  Esther  andEzra-Nehemiah), 
19,  30,  32,  40,  66, 167,  180,  222, 
267. 

Bigthan  (eunuch),  150,  207. 

Bilshan  (=  BH-shimu),  104. 

Bleek,  F.,  259. 

Boghaz-koi  (excavations  of),  28. 

Brahman  Yasht,  128,  129. 

Brahmins,  297. 

Bretons,  90. 

Brown-Driver  (Hebrew  Lexicon), 
231. 

Briinnow,  R.,  163. 

Business  Documents  of  the  Persian 
period,  13 1. 

Cabbalistic  (literature),  92. 

Cabbalists,  107. 

Cadusians  (campaign  of),  45,  72. 

Calani  (=  philosophers  among 
the  Indians),  297. 

Caliphs,  122. 

Cambyses  (king  of  Persia),  40,  77, 
94,  122,  216,  231. 

Canaan,  262,  273. 

Canaanitic,  273. 

Canon  (fixing  of),  15,  79. 

Canticles  (Book  of),  115. 

Cappadocia,  127. 

Cappadocian  (language),  129. 

Carthage,  35. 

Carthaginians,  35. 

Cassel,  Paulus,  ii,  17,  24,  25,  27, 
40,  69,  86,  106,  129,  149,  178, 
185,  251,  266,  267. 

Casting  of  the  Lots  (Purim),  160, 
162-4. 

Caunian,  235. 

Chaldean,  105,  136,  188. 

Childlessness,  187-9. 

Chorasmians,  168. 

Christian  Era,  156. 


Hierarchy,  56. 

Christianity,  36,  100,  128,  161, 
228. 

Christians,  86,  89,  90,  104,  119, 
123,  161,  242,  252. 

Christmas,  166. 

Circumcision,  249. 

Cilicia  (worship  of  Anahita  at), 
127. 

Clay,  A.  T.,  28. 

Clearchus  (commander  of  Cyrus’ 
Greek  mercenaries),  61,  70. 

(of  Soli,  disciple  of  Aristotle), 
297. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  128. 

Cleopatra  (queen  of  Egypt),  5. 

Cnidus  (battle  of),  53. 

Code  of  Hammurabi,  189. 

Coele-Syria,  297. 

Colophon,  43. 

Conon  (Athenian),  53. 

Constellations,  160. 

Cornill,  10. 

Craterus  (one  of  Alexander’s 
generals),  234. 

Critical  Notes  on  Esther  (P. 
Haupt),  2  &c. 

Ctesias  (of  Cnidus),  34,  43,  44,  48, 
57,  58,  61,  69,  70,  77,  141,  158, 
232,  298. 

Cunaxa  (battle  of),  46,  56,  150, 
158,  190,  235. 

Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  119,  126. 

Curtius  (History  of  Greece),  38. 

Cybele  (amalgamated  with  Ana¬ 
hita),  127. 

Cyrene  (the  J ewish  rebellion),  1 72. 

Cyropaedia  (Xenophon),  179. 

Cyrus  the  Great,  33,  37,  38,  77, 
97,  216,  232 ;  the  Younger 
(rebellion  of),  42,  44,  46,  48,  54, 

'  55.  56.  57,  59,  60,  63,  73,  141, 
149,  158,  189,  215,  216,  227, 
228. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Daevas  (Iranian  gods),  99,  125, 
128. 

Damascus  (temple  of  Anahita  at), 
120. 

Daniel  (Book  of),  30,  108,  116, 

136,  137,  138. 

Darius  I,  29,  31,  33,  34,  38,  52,  54, 
72,  77,  loi,  158,  231,  296. 

II  Notus,  44,  51,  56,  78. 

III  Codomanus,  71,  75. 

son  of  Artaxerxes  II,  46,  47, 
48,  49,  51,  231. 

Darmesteter,  J.  (Zend-Avesta),  99, 
128,  129,  141,  163,  296. 

Date  of  Zoroaster  (Jackson),  141. 
David  (king  of  Israel),  21. 

Kimhi  (Biblical  commentator), 
288. 

Deborah  (prophetess),  262. 
Declaration  of  Independence  of 
the  American  Colonies,  229. 
Defilement  of  the  hands,  115. 
Deinon  of  Colophon  (Greek 
author),  43,  44,  45,  46,  77. 
Delitzsch,  Friedrich,  33. 

Delphos,  39. 

Demeter  (=  Anahita),  125. 

Der  (=  Dt(rzlu),  137. 
Deuteronomy,  112,  113= 

Dieulafoy,  M.  (French  archaeo¬ 
logist),  73. 

Dillmann,  26. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  52,  53,  57,  71, 
155,  160. 

Divination,  160,  162,  164,  169. 
Doricha  (real  name  of  Rhodopis), 
69. 

Dositheus  (Priest  and  Levite), 

5,  6. 

Driver,  ii,  31. 

Dura  (=  Dtcriht),  136,  137. 
Dzirilii  (temple  of  Anahita  at), 
137- 


3C5 

Ecbatana  (a  Persian  capital),  126, 
134,  297. 

Ecclesiastes  (Book  of),  115. 

Edict  of  Artaxerxes  (II  ?),  loi. 

Edom,  22. 

Edomites,  14,  86. 

Egypt,  3,  &c. 

Ehud  (judge),  24. 

ekal  {hekal),  106. 

Elam,  28. 

Elamites,  28,  29. 

Elders  of  Israel  (in  Ezekiel),  88, 
96. 

Elementary  gods,  125. 

Elephantine  Papyri  (Sachau),  95, 
170. 

Eliashib  (High  Priest),  170. 

Elijah  (the  High  Priest),  191. 

Emblem  of  Ahuramazda,  98, 124. 

Enchantment  (definition  of),  162. 

Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  20. 

Britannica,  99,  120. 

En-lil  of  Nippur,  121. 

Enoch  (Book  of),  162. 

Entstehung  des  Judenthums  (Ed. 
Meyer),  82,  84. 

Epagomena  (Festival  of),  166-8. 

EranischeAlterthumskunde  (Spie¬ 
gel),  167. 

Erech  (City  of),  138. 

Erez  (Temple  of  Anahita  at),  127. 

Esau,  22. 

Esoteric  religion  of  Zoroaster,  loi. 

Esther  (Book  of),  its  story  being 
discredited  by  modern  exegetes, 
1-2;  its  Greek  version,  2-7; 
its  Rabbinic  interpretation,  7- 
10;  its  facts  misinterpreted, 
and  its  action  placed  in  a  wrong 
period,  11-12;  being  interpo¬ 
lated  in  the  Maccabean  period, 
12-14,  175,  240-4;  its  com¬ 
pilation,  I12-17,  281  ;  (Fast 
of),  283-9  5  (^1^^  Q^^cen),  her 

X 


H. 


3o6 


GENERAL  INDEX 


religious  conceptions,  106-9, 147 
-8 ;  her  messages  to  Mordecai, 
192-200  ;  inviting  Haman  to  the 
banquet,  201-4  ;  her  accusation 
of  Haman,  219-24;  informing 
the  king  of  her  relationship  to 
Mordecai,  232-4 ;  beseeching 
the  king  to  reverse  Hainan’s 
decree,  237-40 ;  her  request 
concerning  the  Jews  of  Susa, 
258-61;  her  confirmation  of  the 
matter  of  Purim,  289-90. 

Esther  and  Judith  (Willrich),  2, 
&c. 

Esther  bei  den  LXX  (Jacob), 
2,  &c. 

Esther  (Das  Buch,  Cassel),  ii, 
&c. 

Esther  (Das  Buch,  Jampel),  9,  &c. 

Ethiopia,  31,  52. 

Eunuchs,  79,  187-92,  202,  207. 

Euphrates  Valley,  90,  92,  121. 

Europe,  123. 

Exhortations  to  the  Greeks 
(Clemens),  129. 

Exodus  (Book  of),  113. 

Exoteric  religion  of  Zoroaster,  loi. 

Ezekael  (angel),  162. 

Ezekiel,  20,  26,  82,  85,  86,  88,  91, 
95,  96, 1 16. 

Ezra,  19,  24,  40,  80,  loi,  102, 109, 
no.  III,  112,  116,  170,  171, 
172. 

Farwardigan  (=  Purim?),  164, 
264,  272. 

Fast  Days,  283-9. 

Fast  of  Esther,  see  Esther. 

Fathers  of  the  World  (Sirach), 
116. 

Festival  of  Anahita,  see  Anahita. 

Festival  of  Magophonia,  141. 

Festival  of  Purim,  see  Purim. 

Festivals  of  the  Season,  272. 


Flavius,  Josephus,  6,  7,  25,  70,  79, 

103,  133,  157,  177,  252. 

Fragmenta  Historicorum  Grae¬ 
corum  (Muller),  1 1 9. 

Frudsha  (pr.  n.),  70. 

Fundamente  Israelitischer  und 
Jiidischer  Geschichte  (Mar- 
quart),  1 19. 

Fiirst,  Julius,  165. 

Gaga,  Gdgi,  25,  26. 

Galilee,  31. 

Gallows  (prepared  for  Mordecai), 
204,  205. 

Galuth-ha~Shekinah,  92. 

Gathering  of  the  virgins,  150. 

Gaumata  (name  of  Pseudo- 
Smerdis),  129,  298. 

Geldner,  K.  F.,  27,  28,  41,  99^ 
100,  loi. 

Genesis  (stories  of),  89. 

Geography  (Strabo),  127,  129. 

Geonim,  107. 

Gera  (father  of  Shimei),  18. 

Germanica  (Tacitus),  216. 

Germans,  216. 

Geschichte  des  Alterthums  (Ed. 
Meyer),  12,  &c. ;  des  Alt- 

testamentlichen  Schriftthums 
(Kautzsch),  9;  der  Poetischen 
National- Literatur  der  Hebraer 
(E.  Meier),  165 ;  des  Volkes 
Israel  (Hitzig),  164,  165;  des 
Volks  Israel  (Stade),  170. 

Gideon  (judge),  24. 

Gog  (in  Ezekiel),  26,  27. 

Golden  image  (of  Anahita),  127, 
136,  137- 

Gottinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  102, 
167. 

Gottinger  Gelehrte  Nachrichten, 
170. 

Graeco-Roman  period,  109. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Graetz,  Heinrich,  24,  88,  93,  94, 
95,  97,  loi,  133,  134,  236. 

Grecian  States,  123. 

Greece,  33,  34,  36,  43,  52,  54, 121. 

Greeks,  35,  37,  51,  54,  73,  74,  76, 
86,  102,  123,  143,  148,  241,  251. 

Greek  Version  of  Esther,  2-7,  22, 
66,  70, 79,  80, 109,  175,  185,  242, 
244,  262,  268,  269,  272,  275,  285. 

Grote,  G.,  38. 

Gyndes  (river),  37. 

Hades,  loo. 

Hadoram  (=  Joram  of  Hamath), 
82. 

Hagadah  shel  Pesah,  276. 

Haggai  (prophet),  116. 

Haman, represented  as  descendant 
of  Agag,  21-9 ;  author  of  the 
reform  of  the  Zoroastrian  re¬ 
ligion,  139-47;  as  persecutor 
of  the  Jews  refused  homage  by 
Mordecai,  153-9  I  ^is  casting  of 
the  Lots,  159-69;  his  accusa¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews,  169-70;  his 
decree,  174-7  ;  invited  to 
Esther’s  banquet,  200-5  ;  pre¬ 
pared  gallows  for  Mordecai, 
204-6 ;  proposing  honours  for 
himself  and  bestowing  them 
upon  Mordecai,  209-15;  his 
downfall  and  execution,  215- 
27 ;  parallel  between  his  fate 
and  that  of  Tissaphernes,  227- 
9 ;  his  property  confiscated  and 
his  family  apprehended,  230-2  ; 
execution  of  his  sons  and  their 
bodies  exposed,  258-61. 

Hammer,  J.  von,  165. 

Hammurabi  (reign  of),  12 1. 

Hammurabi  Dynasty,  121. 

Hananiah  (=  Shadrach),  188. 

Hanukkah  (Festival  of),  166. 

Haoma  (angel),  27,  28,  129. 


307 

Harbonah  (Jewish  eunuch),  192, 

225,  226,  227,  270. 

Harem,  20,  47,  71,  151. 

Harper,  William  Raney,  2. 
Harpates  (murderer  of  the  third 

son  of  Artaxerxes  11),  49. 

Hart,  J.  H.  A.,  297. 

Hastings  Encyclopaedia,  26,  99. 
Hathach  (Jewish  eunuch),  186, 
192,  194,  195,  196. 

Haupt,  Paul,  2,  14,  18,  20,  21,  23, 
25,  67,  163,  164,  177,  205,  207, 
212,  220,  222,  224,  239,  240,  243, 
256,  265,  267,  271. 

Hebraische  Uebersetzungen  des 
Mittelalters  (Steinschneider), 
160. 

Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Tradi¬ 
tions  (Jastrow),  90. 

Hebrew  language  (criterion  of 
Judean  nationality),  82,  83. 
Hebrew  Lexicon  (Brown-Driver), 
231. 

Hecataeus  of  Abdera  (Greek 
author),  133,  135,  169,  244. 
Hellenists,  107. 

Hellespont  (scourged  by  Xerxes), 

37. 

Hephaestion  (general  under 
Alexander),  234. 

Hera  (=  Anahita),  125. 
Heraclides  of  Cyme  (Greek 
author),  43,  49. 

Hermes  (pr.  n.),  105. 

Hermocrates  (sent  into  Greece  by 
Artaxerxes  11),  52. 

Herod  (king  of  Judea),  22. 
Heterodoxy  (in  Judaism),  107,  ii  i. 
Herodotus,  9,  15,  26,  28,  31,  34, 
37,  38,  39,  62,  69,  99,  100,  125, 
148,  151,  154,  155,  158,  173, 

174,  177,  178,  181,  187,  191, 

194,  200,  203,  216,  217,  218, 

226,  231,  298. 


X  2 


3o8 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Het  Herstel  van  Israel  (Kosters), 
102. 

Hezekiah  (king  of  Judah),  24,  82. 

Hillel  (School  of),  115. 

Historisch-kritische  Einleitung 
(Kuenen),  102. 

History  of  the  Jewish  Church 
(Stanley),  9,  106;  of  the  Jews 
(Graetz),  24,  &c. ;  of  the  people 
of  Israel  (Renan),  88,  &;c. 

Hittites,  26. 

Hitzig,  F.,  66,  164,  165. 

Holy  Fire  (of  Ahuramazda),  125, 
138. 

Holy  Spirit  (Jewish),  115,  116; 
(Zoroastrian),  100,  129. 

Holy  Wars  (Persian),  141,  144. 

Hd77t-data  (=  Hamdatha),  129. 

Kommel,  Fritz,  165. 

Htwima  (=  U77i77ia),  28. 

Hutaosa  (=  Hadassah),  106. 

Hydarnes  (father  of  Stateira),  58, 
60,  232. 

Hypocoristica,  104. 

Hyrcania  (banishment  of  the  Jews 
to),  236. 

Hyrcanus  (I),  14;  (H),  7. 

Ibn  Ezra  (Abraham),  17,  31,  41, 
108,  285,  286,  287,  288,  291, 
292. 

Iln-nr-ri  (pr.  n.),  106. 

Independence  Day  (America), 
264. 

India,  31,  52. 

Indians,  297. 

Indra  (Aryan  deity),  28. 

Intaphernes  (conspirator  against 
Pseudo-Smerdis),  231. 

Intermarriage,  109,  no,  171. 

International  Critical  Commen¬ 
tary,  2,  &c. 

Interpolators,  13-14,  175,  240-2. 

Iran,  128. 


Iranian,  98,  120,  127,  128,  141, 
142,  143,  146. 

Iranisches  Namenbuch  (Justi), 
29,  &c. 

Isaiah  (Second),  84,  85,  87,  97,  98, 
loi,  125,  189,  253. 

Ishtar  (identified  with  Anahita), 
125,  126,  138;  (=  Esther), 

106. 

I shtar-udda-sha  ( —  nDin'IJ^pi^), 
106. 

Isidorus  (pr.  n.),  105. 

Islam,  122,  161,  228. 

Israelitische  und  Jiidische  Ge- 
schichte  (Wellhausen),  27, 102. 

Izates  (embraced  Judaism),  157. 

Jackson,  A.  V.  Williams  (Zo¬ 
roaster),  27,  122,  141,  296. 

Jacob,  B.,  2,  4,  5,  6,  25,  32. 

Jahn,  G.,  2,  4,  6,  8,  285. 

Jahrbiicher  fiir  Literatur  (Ham¬ 
mer),  165. 

Jair  (father  of  Mordecai),  16,  18, 
105,  106. 

Jampel,  Siegmund,  9,  il,  18,  34, 
36,  37,  38,  116,  252. 

Jastrow  Morris,  jun.,  90. 

Jaii-bi'di  (king  of  Hamath),  82. 

Ja'iidi  (in  Northern  Syria),  82. 

Jawa  (=  Jahveh),  105. 

Jeconiah  (exiled  king  of  Judah), 
16,  18,  19,  103. 

Jehoiachin  =  Jeconiah,  93. 

Jehiidi77i^  see  Jews. 

Jensen,  Peter,  163,  165. 

Jephthah  (judge),  262. 

Jeremiah  (prophet),  87,  88,  91,93, 
97,  161,  252,  288. 

Jeremias,  Alfred,  26,  loi,  141. 

Jerusalem,  5,  16,  40,  102,  116, 
169,  172,  250. 

Jethro,  247. 

Jewish-Christian  Era,  107. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


309 


Encyclopaedia,  20,  161. 
idolaters,  85,  86. 
nationality  (reform  of),  83-5. 
patriots,  84. 

Quarterly  Review,  New 
Series,  90. 

race,  108,  119,  156,  157,  no, 
169-72. 

Jews,  of  Egypt  not  involved  in 
Haman’s  decree,  3-6  ;  holding 
the  Book  of  Esther  in  high 
honour,  9-10 ;  in  the  Alex¬ 
andrian  age,  13-14,  241-2; 

outside  of  the  Persian  empire, 
34-5  ;  persecuted  on  account  of 
their  religion,**  36,  1 18;  their 
attitude  toward  the  Persian  re¬ 
ligion,  39-40,  101-3  ;  under  the 
Arsacides,  76-9 ;  definition  of 
the  term  ‘Jews’  in  pre-exilic 
times,  81-3;  its  religious  sig¬ 
nificance  in  post-exilic  times, 
83-93,  as  Egyptian  immigrants, 
93-5  ;  their  leaders,  95-8,  103- 
6 ;  their  religious  propaganda 
in  Babylonia,  96-7  ;  under  the 
Achaemenides,  97-8  ;  refusing 
to  worship  Anahita,  130;  the 
attitude  of  the  people  at  large 
toward  her  worship,  13 1  ;  en¬ 
gaged  in  commerce,  13 1-2;  in 
Palestine,  133-6;  being  perse¬ 
cuted,  143-7;  their  wealth, 
177-8;  their  religious  obser¬ 
vances,  249-51  ;  giving  permis¬ 
sion  of  defending  themselves, 
244-61  ;  accepting  the  Festival 
of  Purim  by  common  consent, 
274-89. 

Jezebel,  288. 

Job,  116. 

Johanan  (High  Priest),  170. 

(Syrian  author),  74. 

Jonathan  (High  Priest),  170. 


Joram  (son  of  the  king  of  Hamath), 
82. 

Joseph,  234. 

Joshua  (High  Priest),  19,  20. 

Josiah  (king  of  Judah),  88,  94. 

Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments 
(Fiirst),  165. 

Karaites,  107,  282. 

Kassites  (Dynasty  of),  28. 

Kautzsch,  Emil,  9,  10. 

ke^  ka  (Persian  hypocoristic  ter¬ 
mination),  78,  79,  188. 

Keil,  C.  F.,  9,  31,  32,  40,  193. 

Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte 
Testament,  160. 

Khi-sha-ar-shu  (=  Xerxes),  78. 

Khshaydrshu  (=  Xerxes),  78. 

Kiepert,  H.  (Map),  26. 

Kish  (fellow-captive  of  Jeconiah), 
16. 

(father  of  King  Saul),  17,  18. 
(name  of  Levites),  19. 

Kokab-el  (angel),  161,  162. 

Kosters,  102. 

Krausz,  J.,  104. 

Kuenen,  Abraham,  102. 

Lacedaemonians,  54,  55,  63,  141, 
179,  215,  226. 

Lagarde,  Paul  de,  2,  13,  129,  163, 
166,  167,  283. 

Leben  nach  dem  Tode  (Schwally), 
165. 

Letter  of  Purim,  266,  270,  277, 
278,  280,  283,  295. 

Leuctra  (battle  of),  232. 

Levi  (tribe  of),  19. 

Leviticus  (Book  of),  189. 

Lewy  (Handbuch),  22. 

Literarisches  Centralblatt,  165. 

Local  gods,  91. 

Lucian,  Lucianic  Recension,  23, 
25,  26,  70,  79- 


310 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Lunar  year,  i68. 

Luther,  Martin,  8,  9. 

Lydia,  Lydian,  54,  177,  178. 

Lysimachus  (of  Jerusalem),  5. 

Maccabean  period,  18,  86. 

Maccabees,  3,  14,  241,  242,  254. 

Macedonian  (=  Agagt),  269. 

Magi,  Magian,  27,  55,  100,  130, 
141,  168,  169,  214. 

Maimonides,  160. 

Malachi,  116. 

Marathon  (battle  of),  51. 

Mardtik  {Bel-),  18,  38,  56,  92,  104, 
105,  121,  248. 

Marduka,  Marduku  (pr.  n.),  104. 

Marduk-bH-shimu  (=  Mordecai 
bilshan),  104. 

Mardus  (=  Smerdis),  298. 

Marquart,  J.,  26,  40,  loi,  125,  126, 
143,  148,  169,  190. 

Marseilles  (men  of),  160. 

Masistes  (brother  of  Xerxes  I), 
231- 

Materials  to  a  Sumerian  Lexicon 
(Prince),  163. 

Mazdeism  (=  Zoroastrian  re¬ 
ligion),  99. 

Megabyzus  (one  of  the  conspira¬ 
tors  against  Smerdis),  187. 

Megasthenes  (Greek  author),  297. 

Megiddo  (battle  at),  93,^  94,  95. 

Megillah  (=  the  Scroll),  167. 

Megillath  Ta'anith,  284. 

Meier,  Ernst,  165. 

Meissner,  Bruno,  165. 

Menon  (Greek  commander  in 
Cyrus’  army),  61. 

Mercury  (=  Persian  Ter),  70. 

Mesabates  (eunuch),  191. 

Meshach  (=  Mishael),  188. 

Meshech  (=  IVhishki),  26. 

Metiochus  (son  of  Miltiades),  28, 
148. 


Meyer,  Eduard,  12,  27,  32,  34,  38, 
39,  43,  48,  50,  51,  56,  75,  76,  77, 
84,  87,  88,  98,  99, 120,  121,  123, 
124,  126,  168,  169,  187,  188, 
190,  236,  293. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  214. 

Middle  Ages,  86,  107,  13 1. 

Midianites,  24. 

Midrash,  7,  8,  22. 

Miltiades,  28. 

Minerva,  39. 

Mirchvand  (pr.  n.),  70. 

Mishael  (=  Meshach),  188. 

Mishnah,  108. 

Megillah,  167. 

Parah,  164. 

Mitanni,  28. 

Mithra,  125. 

Mithradata  (pr.  n.),  27. 

Mithra  Feast,  126. 

Mithridates  (the  slayer  of  Cyrus), 
62. 

Mitra  (=  Mithra),  28. 

Mohammedans,  90,  119,  161. 

Moloch,  82. 

Monotheism,  162,  163,  248,  249, 
272. 

Monotheist,  Monotheistic,  124, 
135,  147,  162. 

Mordecai,  his  genealogy,  16-19  1 
his  information  of  Esther,  20- 
I ;  racial  contrast  between  him 
and  Haman,  21-9  ;  his  religious 
conceptions,  103-12 ;  concealed 
his  connexion  with  the  Jews, 
147-9  j  his  position  at  the  court, 
149-50 ;  revealed  the  plot 
against  the  life  of  the  king, 
149-52;  refused  to  bow  down 
to  Haman,  153-9;  his  conduct 
on  learning  of  the  decree  against 
the  Jews,  184-6 ;  sources  of  in¬ 
formation  at  his  disposal,  186- 
94 ;  the  messages  exchanged 


GENERAL  INDEX 


31I 


between  him  and  Esther,  194- 
9 ;  honoured  by  Haman,  207- 
14;  installed  as  Hainan’s  suc¬ 
cessor,  230-5  ;  his  decree,  237- 
45  ;  his  public  appearance  as 
grand  vizier,  245-6  ;  established 
the  Festival  of  Purim,  263-5  ; 
his  Letter  of  Purim,  265-72  ; 
his  success  as  grand  vizier, 
293-5  I  his  Persian  name,  297- 
8  ;  his  eulogy,  298-9. 

Moschians,  26, 

Moses,  104,  109. 

Moslems,  242. 

Muller  (Frag.  Hist.  Graec.),  1 1 9. 

Mycale  (battle  of),  32,  49. 

Mylitta  (=  Anahita),  134. 

Mythology,  89. 

Nabu  (=  Ter),  70. 

Nabii-bel-shunu  (pr.  n.),  104. 

Nabu-naHd  (king  of  Babylonia), 

97- 

Nabu-nasir  (pr.  n.),  104. 

Nabu-shakm-ud-du  (pr.  n.),  106. 

Nana-iddin^  105. 

Nand-Ishtar^  138. 

Nasatya  (Aryan  deity),  28. 

National  consciousness,  82-3. 

Nazarenes,  86. 

Nebuchadnezzar  (king  of  Baby¬ 
lonia),  16,  88,  91,  188  ;  (=  Arta- 
xerxes  II),  136-8. 

Nehemiah,  83,  109,  ill,  112,  1 16, 
148,  169,  170,  171,  172,  190, 
250. 

Neo-Persian  empire,  Neo-Per¬ 
sians,  52,  141,  168. 

Neubabylonisches  Namenbuch 
(Tallquist),  104. 

Nergal  (deity),  248. 

New  Year  Festival  (Jewish),  160  ; 
(Babyl.  and  Pers.),  59,  159, 
164. 


Nicanor  Day,  3,  284. 

Nin-ib  (deity),  162. 

Nin-ib-bel-sumi  (pr.  n.),  1 04. 

Nm-ib-inuballit  {^x.  n.),  105. 

Nisan  (month),  56,  168. 

Noah,  1 16. 

Noldeke,  Theodor,  20,  102. 

Nowack’s  Hand-Commentar  zum 
Alten  Testament,  2. 

Nuri'Ishtar  (pr.  n.),  106. 

Oarses  (=  Arses),  77,  78. 

Ochus  (Artaxerxes  III),  47,  48, 
52. 

October-April  (coronation  festivi¬ 
ties),  56-7. 

Og  (king  of  Bashan),  262. 

Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the 
Ancient  East  (Jeremias),  loi. 

Olympics,  122. 

Omanos  (=  Vohuman),  129. 

Oral  Law,  114. 

Origen  (letter  of),  7. 

Origin  of  Purim,  140. 

Oropastes  (=  Smerdis),  298. 

Orthodoxy,  107,  iii. 

Ostanes  (brother  of  Artaxerxes  II), 
44) 

Otanes  (father  of  Phaedima),  15 1, 
187,  194;  (father  of  Amestris 
wife  of  Xerxes  I),  34. 

Ottli,  220,  222. 

Oxatres  (brother  of  Artaxerxes  II), 
44,  61. 

Pahlavi  (middle  dialect  of  the 
Persian  language),  163. 

Pairish-teira  (pr.  n.),  70. 

Palestine,  3,  79,  169,  244,  250, 
265,  284. 

Pallas  Athene  (=  Anahita),  125. 

Paris  (Bretons  at),  90. 

Pariscas  (chief  eunuch  of  Cyrus), 
191. 


312 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Parthia,  Parthian  empire,  Par- 
thians,  75,  76,  79,  141,  180. 

Pary satis  (mother  of  Artaxerxes  II 
and  Cyrus),  44,  46,  47,  54,  55, 
58,  59,  60,  61,  65,  70,  73,  158, 
201,  232. 

Pasargadae  (consecration  at),  54, 
,  227. 

Pashshuru  {  =  punt),  163. 

Passover  (Festival  of),  168. 

Paton,  L.  13.,  2,  4,  6-1 1,  14,  18, 
21,  30-2,  40,  57,  62,  63,  73,  108, 
152,  153,  156,  167,  177,  181, 
185,  191,  194,  196,  199,  200, 
206,  207,  210,  213,  215,  220, 
223,  224,  235,  259,  291,  296. 

Patriarchs,  89,  273. 

Persae  (of  Aeschylus),  70,  298. 

Persephone  (=  Anahita),  125. 

Persica  (Ctesias),  43,  &c. 

Persian  annals,  207,  296,  297 ; 
calendar,  168  ;  customs,  64, 
65;  proper  names,  128,  142; 
wars,  120. 

Pharisees,  3. 

Phaedima  (wife  of  Cambyses, 
Pseudo-Smerdis  and  Darius), 
151,  194. 

Pharaoh,  234. 

Pharnabazus  (Persian  satrap),  53. 

Philhellene  (epithet  of  Arsaces 
Mithridates),  76. 

Philistines,  24. 

Philosophers,  107,  297. 

Phoenicia,  236. 

Phoenicians,  34,  249. 

Phrourai  (Letter  of),  5. 

Phur  (=  New  Year),  164. 

Planets,  90,  160,  162. 

Plataea  (battle  of),  32,  51. 

Plutarch  (Life  of  Artaxerxes),  42, 
49,  57-62,  65,  70,  73,  123,  150, 
151,  201,  209,  210,  215,  223, 
227,  228,  231,  235. 


Polytheism,  161,  163,  248,  272. 

Polytheistic,  122,  124,  126,  143, 
146,  256. 

Pontus  (temple  of  Anahita),  127. 

Poseidon  (chastisement  of),  37. 

Post-dating,  56. 

Prayer  of  Esther,  109. 

Ezra,  170. 

Pre-Mosaic  period,  90. 

Prexaspes  (Persian  grandee),  216, 

231. 

Prince,  J.  D.,  20,  163. 

Prinz  und  Derwisch  (Weisslowitz), 
165. 

Promulgation  of  the  Law,  1 70-2, 
290. 

Prophetic  Universalism,  251. 

Proselytes,  84,.  86,  246-54. 

Prostitution  (cult  of  Anahita), 
126. 

Protestant  theologians,  7. 

Psalms,  246,  299. 

Pseudo-Smerdis,  34,  141,  168,231, 

232. 

Ptolemy  (king  of  Egypt),  5. 

(son  of  Dositheus),  5. 

Par  (=  abnu),  163. 

Purim  (Festival  of),  not  observed 
in  Egypt,  3  ;  its  observance  in 
the  pre-Maccabean  period,  12; 
simultaneous  with  the  festival 
of  Anahita,  166-8;  the  ety¬ 
mology  of  its  name,  272  ;  the 
special  significance  of  its  ob¬ 
servance,  274-7 ;  its  establish¬ 
ment  against  the  consent  of  the 
Sopherim,  278-83 ;  confirmed 
by  a  royal  decree,  289-91. 

Purim  (Haupt),  14,  Slc. 

Purim  (Lagarde),  166,  &c. 

Pythus  (Lydian),  177,  178. 

Rabbi  Asher,  283. 

Jacob  Tam,  28s. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


3^3 


Jose  (Tanaite),  1 1 5. 

Joshua  son  of  Hananiah, 

113,  115. 

Meir,  115. 

Simeon,  115. 

Ranke,  H.,  78. 

Rashi,  22,  32,  86. 

Rawlinson,  G.,  39,  45,  62,  69,  100, 
151,  168,  178,  187,  188. 
Rawlinson,  Sir  H.,  188. 

Reform  of  the  Zoroastrian  re¬ 
ligion,  125-8,  130,  146,  165. 
Religion  and  State,  120-1. 
Religious  Aspects  and  Beliefs  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  (Jas- 
trow),  120. 

Community  (Jewish),  84,  97. 
Creeds  (influence  of),  88,  89. 
Persecutions,  ill,  118,  119, 
131,  132,  133,  139- 
Propaganda,  87,  96. 

Renan,  E.,  69,  88,  90,  92,  95,  96, 
105,  129. 

Reuben  (tribe  of),  18. 

Rhodopis  (epithet  ofDoricha),  69. 
Richardson,  69. 

Riehm,  Ed.  K.  A.,  9. 

Roman  Epoch,  105. 

Governors,  178. 

Laws,  63. 

Romans  (under  the),  172. 

Rome,  22,  260. 

Rosh  Hashanah  (Tractate  of), 
284. 

Russian  Jews,  14. 

Pogroms,  252. 

Sabbath,  85,  249,  250. 

Sachau,  95. 

Sacred  Books  (Zoroastrian),  14 1, 
296. 

Vessels,  164.  . 

Sadducees,  107. 

Salamis  battle  of),  32,  51. 


Samaria  (inhabitants  of),  82. 
Samaritan,  no,  135. 

Samson  (=  Apollonius),  105. 
Samuel  (Principal  of  Nahardea 
Academy),  115. 

(Prophet),  24,  1 14. 

Sanballat  (Samaritan),  no. 
Sandoces  (Persian  governor),  158. 
Sanhedrin,  in. 

Sappho  (Greek  poetess),  69. 
Sardis  (capital  of  Lydia),  33,  120. 
Sariel  (angel),  162. 

Sassanides,  50,  98,  163,  228. 
Satibarzanes  (eunuch),  191. 

Saul  (king  of  Israel),  16,  17,  18, 
21,  24,  91. 

Scepticism,  13,  247. 

Schrader,  Eberhard,  26. 

Schwally,  165,  167. 

Scythians,  35,  36,  37. 

Seleucia,  251. 

Seleucides,  13. 

Semites,  84,  188,  249. 

Shabti-el  (angel),  16 1. 

Shadrach  (=  Hananiah),  188. 
Sha-la-bel{tiT)-s}nm  (pr.  n.),  104. 
Shamai  (School  of),  115. 

ShmTiash  (Sun-god),  106,  125, 
161,  248. 

Shamshi-el  (angel),  161,  162. 
Shimei  (grandfather  of  Mordecai), 
16,  18. 

Siegfried,  Carl,  2,  8,  17,  18,  20, 
21,  40,  57,  66,  108,  150,  156, 
194,  198,  200,  213,  222,  224, 
246,  285. 

Sihon,  262. 

Simeon  (tribe  of),  105. 

Sirach,  6,  116. 

Smerdis,  298. 

Sogdiana,  180. 

Sogdians,  166. 

Sogdianus  (successorof  Xerxes  II), 

54. 


3H 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Solar  Year,  i68. 

Solomon  (king  of  Israel),  125. 
Soma  (Vedic  =  Haoma),  28. 
Sopherim,  112,  113,  114,  263,  265, 
280,  281. 

(Tractate  of),  283,  284, 
Spanish  Jewish  preachers),  89,  90. 
Sparta,  52,  53. 

Spen-dat,  Spenda-dat  (father  of 
Vohuman),  129. 

Sphenda-dates  (=  Pseudo-Smer- 
dis),  129,  298. 

Spiegel,  167. 

Spring  Festival,  159. 

Sta  (element  in  Persian  names), 
70. 

Stade,  B.,  2,  170. 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  9,  106,  116. 

Stateira  (wife  of  Artaxerxes  II), 
58-62,  68,  69,  158,  203,  232. 
Steinschneider,  M.,  160. 

Strabo,  127,  129. 

Strassmeier,  77. 

Stromata  (Clemens),  128. 
Sumero-Babylonian,  106,  164. 
Syria,  3,  79,  94. 

Syrians,  14,  34,  241,  251,  254. 

TcCanith  (Tractate  of),  285. 
Tallquist,  K.,  104,  298. 

Talmud  Babli  Megillah,  7,  8,  67, 
85,  90,  103,  104,  III,  1 12,  1 13, 
114,  115,  116,  138,  154,  167. 
Menahoth,  7,  104. 

Sanhedrin,  162. 

Shabbath,  145,  162,  171. 
Yoma,  20. 

Tanyoxarces  (=  Smerdis),  298. 
Targumim,  7,  8,  &c. 

Targum,  Second,  19. 

Tauranitis  (worship  of  Anahita), 
127. 

Temple  of  Job,  95. 

of  Jerusalem,  169. 


Ter  (element  in  Persian  names), 
70. 

Teribazus,  Tiribazus  (Persian 
grandee),  46,  47,  49,  209,  210. 

Teridates,  Tiridates  (brother  of 
Parthian  Arsaces),7o,  75, 76,  81. 

Teriteuchmes  (brother of  Stateira), 
58,  70,  158,  232, 

Teu7nman  (Elamitic  pr.  n.),  28. 

Thanksgiving  Day  (American), 
264. 

Theocratic  constitution,  121. 

Thrace,  41,  51,  74. 

Tibarenians  (=  people  of  Tabal), 
26. 

Tishri  (month  of),  172. 

Tissaphernes  (Persian  satrap), 
54,  53,  78,  158,  201,  226. 

Titus  (Flavius),  284. 

Tobit  (Book  of),  30. 

Togarmah  (=  Til-garhnii)^  26. 

Tubal  (=  Tabal),  26. 

Turanians,  127. 

Turkish  empire,  Turks,  123. 

Twelve  Tables  (Roman  Law),  63. 

Ud-da  (element  in  Babyl.  pr.  n.), 
106. 

Ud-du  (=  ud-dd),  106. 

Udiastres  (murderer  of  Teri¬ 
teuchmes),  158. 

Ui7i-man  (Elamitic  deity),  28. 

Uminanaldasi  (Elam.  pr.  n.),  28. 

Ummanigash  (Elam.  pr.  n.),  28. 

Urartu  ( =  Armenia),  26. 

urru  (synonym  of  ud-da),  106. 

Urud-Malik  (pr.  n.),  106. 

Valmk  (=  Ochus),  70. 

Varda?t  (=  Rodanes),  70. 

Varuna  (Aryan  deity),  28. 

Vashtak  (Pers.  pr.  n.),  70. 

Vashta-  teira  {  =  A  sta-teira  =  S’ ta- 
teira),  70. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


315 


Vashti  (wife  of  Ahasuerus),  58,  60, 
62-72, 199. 

Vammsa  (Pers.  pr.  n.),  70. 

Vedic,  28. 

Vendidad  Fargard^  164. 

Vernal  equinox,  159. 

Viakhna  (=  Adar),  168. 

Vidarna  (=  Hydarnes),  70. 

Vindafarna  (=  Intaphernes),  70. 

Vohuman  (son  of  Spen-dat\  128, 
129. 

WasH  (=  Vashti\  70. 

Wellhausen,  J.,  27,  102,  170. 

Westland,  90. 

Wildeboer,  9,  17,  18,  20,  21,  31, 
40,  57,  66,  150,  165,  194,  200, 
212,  213,  217,  220,  233,  234, 
256,  285. 

Willrich,  H.,  2,  3,  4,  5,  7,  9,  32, 

133- 

Winckler,  H.,  25,  26,  28,  32, 
165. 

Winged  Ring,  99,  124. 

Xenophon,  57,  179,  298. 

Xerxes  I,  12, 15,  16,  30,  31,  32,  35, 


38,  41,  42,  51,  73-5,  100,  177, 
231,  291,  292,  296. 

II,  54,  78. 

Yashtishat  (temple  of  Anahita), 

127. 

Zadok  (High  Priest),  19. 
Zarathustra  =  Zoroaster. 
Zechariah  (prophet),  116,  282. 
Zeitschrift  fiir  Alttestamentliche 
Wissenschaft,  2,  &;c. 
fiir  Assyriologie,  77. 
der  Deutschen  Morgenlandi- 
schen  Gesellschaft,  165. 
Zend-Avesta,  99,  &;c. 

Zimmern,  H.,  160,  163,  165. 
Zodiak  (signs  of),  90,  160. 
Zoroaster,  98,  120,  125,  128,  143, 
168. 

Zoroaster  (Jackson),  27,  122,  128, 
141. 

Zoroastrian,  Zoroastrianism,  26, 
38,  39,55,  98-100,102,  103,120, 
122,  124-30,  137,  140-4,  235, 
238,  250. 

Zunz,  L.,  165. 


II 

^1^1,  23* 

;an,  uan,  uanh,  14, 23,  25. 
nnAN,  295. 

(=  Satraps),  31. 
mAD  nnoN  px,  107. 
nv  220. 

(=  Bagadatha),  27. 
naon  ay  “idn,  4,  267,  268, 
271. 

OHM  DwS  nriDN,  115. 


nnroNj  nnn  nnoN,  116. 

nonn’inDS  (=:np‘nn-“inpN),  106. 

nnp^  nnoNJ  nnoN,  116. 

74- 

DM  PDN,  293. 
nib)D)  pDN,  107. 

5. 

17,  18. 

wi  Nun  nSj  'im,  68. 


3i6 


GENERAL  INDEX 


i^nn  "im  nx,  265. 
y2i<  rr'a’i  m,  198. 

"lun,  24,  27. 

d.t:dd,  167. 

pn  n'n,  232. 
mn  p,  232. 

'n  bv  -i33n  'n,  253. 

])^b  bv2  (=:pb),  104. 

DDyn  )^p2,  256. 

25. 

p'jn  Dynn^  'a,  286. 

A1A,  25. 

163. 

mTTA,  286. 
yyn  n:n  da,  226. 

DDvyD  n?DNn  nm,  285. 

Dn:;yD  nm^n  nni,  285. 

Dnpyn  n?o:;n  nni,  4, 282-9. 

nnDTn  Dn^nn  ijy  nvovn  '“im, 

287. 

DniD  nm,  290. 
n?:DNn  nm,  282. 

DnvyD  riDNi  Dii^c^  nm,  286. 
n-niiT  m,  108. 

nt^D  m,  108. 

IDHN  D^^tyi  DDNn,  282. 

'ADH,  14,  23. 

r\2br2n  m  dah,  226. 
niTiDn  nyn  d'dk^vh,  276. 

^22^12  nm  nDyn,  156. 


pni  182. 

D'Disn,  275. 

••AN  'AinD^  Di^n,  288. 
n5?:^n,  220. 

DiTADD  '112V  i6  257. 

innD  DJiNi,  239. 

^:2b  nNDni,  4,  266-73. 

'ADij  “iriDN  N3m,  268. 

'Asi?  ^NDni,  271. 

"li?Dn  ’'Asi?  'DTiD  N3m,  271. 

□T  m  )nb2^  xb  nDm,  243. 
n^Ac^  nihnn  ynpnm,  4,  150. 
2)12b  1)21  HAUnn  DAI,  227. 
D'ty’nDDm ,  286. 
pn  m  it.^2nb  217. 

T  nbii^b  V2^V2  D^i,  6,  175. 

‘•DU  '.Tl,  30. 

DAI^nD  D.TNAISyn  Wl,  244. 

DD  'n  nm,  4,  40,  53> 
292-3. 

'mnN  'niDN  ntyNDi,  198. 

)DV  ptyb  4,  66-7. 

DniD  'ad!?^  DVD  nDvnni?  lAnAi, 
284. 

DiTa'IND  niAl,  262. 

“IDDD  nDDAI,  291. 
isn  pn  'ADI,  224,  226. 

VAD  21),  4,  231- 
D'liTriD  pNn  'DVD  D'3“11,  247- 
54* 

nn^  D^5?iyi,  243. 

1112)  n^HA  npyr,  185. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


DnD  l5'>n,  57. 

VDsn,  214. 

D'wn  bv  2^n,  266,  267, 

272. 

P|D,  240,  243. 

dniiT,  DHiiTn,  81,  82,  85, 
86,  102,  118,  131,  132,  156, 
157.  159,  212,  213. 
pi  nn  'pv,  226. 
n'jynn  ni',  285. 
n*lD  DV,  281. 

Dnisn  277. 
nntDty*!  281. 

nn«  oy  173. 

32. 

nnni?  'junr),  112. 

“isDn  in^r  nsr  niriD,  112,  114. 

oniiTn  (oy)  ns  nnsi?,  175. 

266, 267, 269. 
n^jyn  284. 

noy  n«  “inoN  mun  i6,  107. 
pN'  22. 

162. 

rh  nuni?,  196. 
luyi?’)  Tui?  iDtyni?  219, 220. 
i2i6)  Anni?  iwii?,  175,  219. 
0^*13  244. 

Dvn  n)^vb,  260. 
nn^mD  niti’y!^,  244. 


317 

nnyn  256. 

(=  Judge’s  circuit),  31. 

8.' 

nn,  232. 

"lyi  ninto,  53. 

DWJtO,  257. 

nitD),  17,  104. 

nvn 

20. 

nnmnro,  251. 

' 

pn,  220, 221. 

(  =  Bagadatha),  27. 

m  jrD,  268. 

nSD,  290,  291. 
m:nDTn  -isd,  207,  291. 

Dnny.  257. 

IT  5?y,  239. 

rrh)i2)  nv,  107, 

^  s> 

,  223* 

^na,  236,  247. 
nina,  31. 

^»"sn"n  ‘^iTa,  283. 

n5?nA  nci^na,  295. 

Pisan  ns^na,  295. 
tAS’a,  8. 

TTH'-n  nTV,  174. 

T^,  220. 

nnn^  '^lynp,  114. 

“laa  ibps^  HD  1?:^,  i45- 


GENERAL  INDEX 


318 


nanp,  232. 

miN  p  'in,  (N"n"e^n), 

90. 


pj'ny  ntj^yn  4- 

ipn'  D'ytyn  ni^>,  20. 
''m  'ty'Dm  'Jty,  284. 


nnNty,  232. 


nriDN  n'jyn,  280,  285. 


9 

Ayayato?,  23. 

' PiX'qO^ia^  (Kara  r?}?),  286. 

A(T7raixLTpr]<i,  ^O. 

’AcrraKTos  (=  Vashtak),  'JO* 
’Ao’Tao’TTTj?,  70* 

"'A.(TTr]<i,  70* 

’'AcTTt  (=  Vashti),  70. 
’AcrrtjSao'as,  70* 

"Acttiv  (=  Vashti),  70. 

'Aa-vr/pos  {=  Ahasuerus),  79. 

^ AcfidvicraL  to  yevo?  rwv  ’Ioi;8at^(ov, 

175- 

Bay  a  t09,  23. 

Bayouat  (=  'lAl),  24. 

Boi;ya^av  (=  Baya^av),  23. 
Boi^yato?,  23,  26. 

BovA^v  avT(x)v  {Kara  r^v),  286. 

r pa/x/xara  pLvr]p.6(Tvva,  291. 

rwyatos,  23,  25,  26. 

’Eypa<^')7  CIS  pLvr]pi6(Tvvov,  29 1. 
’ETrpa^Tjjxcv  (  =  litOnnJ  ?),  2  20. 
Evepyerrjs  ^atrtXews,  155* 

’lSepv>js  (=  Vidarna),  70. 
'IvTafjiipvrj's  (=  Vindafarna),  70. 

Map8os,  298. 

Mv>j/xocrwa  twv  i^/xepwv,  20 7. 
MTJTpOTToXcCS,  275* 


III 

Olvov  TTLVCLV  TrXeLova  KoX  (fiepeLV, 

55* 

’OpSavTjs  (  =  'PoSav>js  =  Vardan), 
70. 

OvacrrT/ (=  Vashti),  70* 

Ovao-Tiv  (=  Vashti),  70. 
OvaaTo/SaXo?,  ^o. 

OvSev  SiypTrao-av,  263. 

npocr/cwTjo-ts,  153* 

'PoSavTjs,  see  ’OpSavTjs. 

57ra/x6Tprjs  (  =  ’Acr7ra/xtV/07js),  'JO. 
^7ra(TLvrj<s  (  =  'Y(r7racrtv7js),  7®* 
'^TafSaKY}^,  70* 

^ra/xeVrjS,  7®* 

'Yytct^as  (Kara  rijs),  286. 
'Yo’Trao'tVTjs,  70* 

l^prjcrOaL  rots  dvTtSiKOts  .  .  .  ws 
fSovXovraL,  243,  263. 

Uprja-Oai  rod’s  vopLOLS  avTwVj  243, 
244. 

’'O/xavos  (=  Haman.?),  129. 
’'O/xtcros  (=  Vaumisa),  70. 
Oo/xdvia  ( =  Vohumanah),  129. 
'Os  elcr^XOev  Trpos  rov  /3acriAea, 
269. 

O^os  (=  Vahuk),  70. 


t 


.5:  ■  iiv'-'  ■-  \'/  ‘  i' 

•■-  -  -  - 

-v^y  v  :.-vy!: 

.'  -../-ft, '  - -iC  "  .' -^  'v,-...-r:  '  .-}■.  "■’■•A  • 

^  f  ■•.  ■^ '  .  •.  :• '  •  -  ■  ■  N-  •  •■  '■  '■  ■  '•  '^1  <  -  'T./x  .  yi-. 

'  x  •'■'  •  ■’  '*'  ■'•'  ■  Z  ■-  ■  , 


4 .  > 
>1 


ryr 

y-. 

-"  ;  V’  .;K^  ■' 

"  ‘■y"  '♦.V 

■y. 

■Z-r  ^V'  '  ■  / 

^  ’.  ‘  ^■' 

'77^; 

"  • 

■t- . 

'^'  •  .  jy  ■ 

’  *  '  V  ^ 

t;^;'’’  X.*/  ':>r5'-  ■  ■  '"■  .  ^■'  '\.  '"■  '  ■■■' 


,  -  7 


'  V  r  ♦ 


>  '•■yyy v>y.:’’  ^-.xV  .  "  ■’  ■'  v  '  >  ^ y.^- .: 

Sr''..i.-  ->7  .v  ,  ■  ,  .  ■  ■■  •..  ^  .il-'-X/"  j  ..  X  ixvr.  '  •  ‘  •  r  ■'-Ni  :  ■  . 


V,  *i  "* 

-  *  —f  vP 


.  *  i 


’  V'- 

Jk 


x;-CS  ,  .V 


I' 


yyy.:>y  ■"  -.  ^, . 


y-  x'v' 

y.'  ^ V  -  '  -f  1  . 


X  /T. 


-  ,■}  f. 


r 


5,'. '■ 


•  't 

*  V  ’  -f'* 


o  \  ‘  •» 

-T:-  *  . 


•  *  "f 


-.0 

.'r-y. 


^  '  ^  ■  I  •  V*  ’ 

Sr  -  < 

'  '  S  s  *  •  "  ^  ' 

•A.  '.../S.?  ;x  > 


V’ V 


k"  ‘- 

•T^V 

t.;V‘  ■' 


// 

V/t* 


s 


•  I*'-:  “•  . 


/  • 

•  v-  • 

r,.  , 


■  ■  ‘-^  ■,;.  V< 


'  ’  r  .  ■' 


-SV 


/  .  ^ 


vr-'’t-.  .' x. 

,  •  ’-.'-VI  •.*♦.' 

:  ■■'»",  1  ,"'  /y  ■  -  ■  '  ' 

•  *■  . .  •  ., 

•  I .:  *  f  '■  V  ^ 


'v'  ■  .■  ''  i 


'•  -I  4.\  7 

.N  y 


^  ''.x'  y>  f-* 

?=H..  ■■.  4  .;*'  '■  vx<ri«  L  ,  -v  -  '  :  *.  '  . 


■/  ',. 

r  '»* 


••X".  .;.y 

*•  .  .  rt  ■  . 


•  ‘v  . 


y  y 

V,. 

'-X' 


■ 


I 


,  /*  *  • 

^  -  '•X  *‘V^  * 


'  8t 

s  ‘y;  .  - 

y  •  :%-yy  ^ 


y  -4 yy.'.  -  ,  .  -.  . 

■'-  ■  '  ‘ .  ■  ""■;■■■  ‘'-:t ■ 


.:  )V.',  V '..  ■=,<, 


'y.  ..  ■ 

* 

f  *1*  *- 


^  \ 


>  .■x  -^  ,':'V..X  7.  >  *  r;. 

.  '7’  ■'  i  '  -  .,•  .  ^7,  ;  - 


V 


■» 

t(tV>)*-;  - 
»* 

v-i/r  / 


.  -,  i  ■ 


y* 


'  i 


r*’  « 


•vv 


y;r> 


•‘  '  .pi  '  ' 

n-VVi'  .  • 

v.  •;  ‘y 

'  /  '.  •■^'r  ■  ■  '  •  f  /■■ 


.'  'i 


'••  7; 


V..  .’  '"■• 


',  T". . 

j*  •  >■•  -  V 


A  '■ 


.  fx  ,• 


\  V 


?r' 


y. 


-  vV'  '• 


;  . 


X 

j 


V  •  v\ 


J  .♦  •  •  .  ^- 

■V  -  *■ 


i  tm  '  1  - 

'  y  r  '*■  I*':  tf-v . ... .; 

y:  W’Xr'-  -Jy:'.. 


“ .  I , 

.  i 


.  ’■  ...  ;  V'.  ■■•'  >  7 


-  .  ..•■  J  .^V 


.  (  . , 

V 


t  ' 

-'■’^  V. 


J^ 

'V 


.,'  V 
>  . 


^  \ 


’  'f 


* 

7 

^7  •- .177 


/T  .>  ; 

'  ■  .  ». 


,  > 


'-  >  >, 


ir-v  /-  .  .  " 
.j'*  ,  -  'i/*  ■  . 

•■<  1 1  .')  ■  ■ 


ft......  7" 

. 

X  /  *  v«*  .. 

i- 

yT.  y-' 

r%  y  . 

^t;77; 


.  s.  ' 

xVy' 


,  ♦  ■  -■ 


'■  '  V'v  ^ 

«  .  ■  ,  x  V;  ^  ' 

■  '•>V‘ 

•■>  :  •').  •  \-i 

■  \  ■  •’.  .  /  - 


'A 


( 


'  A 

-7  / 


s  »  •• 

. .  'v 


'■  -  ''y 

i .  >♦  ,'  s 

4  •  4"^ 


m.4L.:*  y. 

sv  .  '  ■  H 


. ,  \ 


\ 

4  • ,' 


>- 


'  '  . 

•  •  .  .-.riv:  < . 

*.'/■<  y.< 

,•%)  ^  ,*y  ‘ .- 
V'*  S'*  -  . .  V 


r  > 


■  ^ 


» 

<. 


»v 

S-  r- 


•  *.< 


)  ■  >- 

e  ,vi 


■.•••■■xV 

'*  •  *•  ■ '  *■'■  '  '  sX-' 


■  / 


>V<-  t.'i.  I 


.\ 


l  y  ■  ' 


.  .ft- 

s 

■  >V'  ' 


v-i' 

J 


Date  Due 


